- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 23:07:19 -0500
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
In our discussion of the sort issue today, I was kinda interested to try to move the "give me the answer in slices" functionality to the protocol, but this evening I remembered... "2.3 Cursors and proofs Some languages, for instance, OQL, define a layer of protocol that handles requester/server interactions for result set cursors or proofs. The abstract syntax may be extensible to express the relevant parameters, but their definition and effects are beyond the scope of this working group." http://www.w3.org/2003/12/swa/dawg-charter#protocol If I sorta disregard "proof" in that section, it seems to say that cursors are out of scope, and the sort of protocol cookie/tokens that came to my mind when we discussed moving OFFSET/LIMIT to the protocol seem to be an awful lot like cursors. And if we're not supposed to do cursors in the protocol, it seems sneaky to stick that functionality in the QL. I'm not sure how to interpret our charter here. I think I'll ask around. Advice is welcome. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2005 04:07:22 UTC