- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:54:46 +0000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Tom had examples which I found helpful: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0426.html In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0433.html I saw them as data management (sometimes trusted - not clear if the source information would appear to the application) and provenance (untrusted - application definitely should source information). Andy Dan Connolly wrote: > I once again pleaded that we postpone SOURCE 'till next time, > and then took a straw poll which resulted in many "my users > want source" responses. > > I'm still concerned that we won't find a SOURCE design that > meets the needs of all these users, but I just thought of > a way to manage that risk. > > Would each WG member who has talked to some users who want > SOURCE please sketch a test case? I don't need you to get > every detail right at the first draft, but if, say, Kevin > knows some customer that wants SOURCE, I'd like our final > test repository to have a test case that his users > can point to and say "yes, that will work for us." > > If you can base your test case sketch on a little bit of > *real data* from the users, that's great. If you have to > simulate it with example.com and such, that's not as great, > but it's still good. > > If one of the tests that Dave is already working on > matches your users' usage patterns, I'd still prefer > that you copy the pattern and substitute the real vocabularies > and values and such that the users care about, but > I suppose responses of the form... > The pigfarmer supply chain consortium's usage of SOURCE > is covered by an existing test > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/tests/data/source-named/query-9.1.rq > > are more helpful than nothing. > >
Received on Wednesday, 15 December 2004 17:58:50 UTC