- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 12:21:45 -0500
- To: kendall@monkeyfist.com
- Cc: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, Yoshio FUKUSHIGE <fuku@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
I'm pleased that my request for test cases spawned quite a bit of thoughtful discussion, but now I'm struggling to keep track of which designs are supported by whom... I have been hoping that a summary would emerge magically... but I suppose I should produce one... Meanwhile... at the risk of asking Kendall to repeat himself... On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 13:06 -0400, Kendall Clark wrote: > On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 05:47:32PM +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > > > The contract between requestor and publisher is either to use the data set > > described (inc protocol considerations) or to use the one the publisher > > advertises. Not some hybrid or something completely different. > > Says who? Seriously, I don't like that contract, and I can think of others I > like better. Do you have some other contract that you prefer? Or do you prefer to just leave out the constraint that Yoshio and Andy are advocating, and let the contract be unspecified? Do you think it's OK (i.e. technically correct, if not high quality) for a service to ignore FROM and FROM NAMED altogether? Or is your position that FROM and FROM NAMED be "lower bounds" on the dataset used to service a query? Or something else? -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 3 June 2005 17:21:52 UTC