- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:37:21 -0600
- To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Cc: DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 13:10 -0500, Kendall Clark wrote: > Folks, > > This discharges one or another outstanding actions, I think: > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/UseCases > > $Log: UseCases.html,v $ > Revision 1.146 2005/03/21 17:58:48 kclark > added 2 new uses cases, 2.18 and 2.19, and tweaked the sort objective > to match the other objectives "Motivates: (do we need a WSDL req?)" indeed... we have one... "A poll showed considerable support for adding this requirement, and we RESOLVED: A WSDL description shall be included in the protocol specification" -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/ftf5-bos.html#item_03 Hm... the sorting use case doesn't use limit... if you don't use limit, you might as well sort the results after you get them, no? It seems to me that the use case should be a "give me the 1st N items..." use case in order to motivate sorting in the query engine. Not critical, though. I'm inclined to publish this UC&R document soon... it seems to me that we earlier set a signal that our requirements were stable, but due to comments etc., we have done some significant stuff w.r.t. our requirements and objectives: - added WSDL requirement - added sorting objective - we made a pretty big change w.r.t. human friendly syntax - we postponed accessingCollections Perhaps this would be a good preparation-for-last-call excercise... look over our requirements and see whether we think we've met them, and ask the community if they agree. We could even do an actual last call on UC&R before query and protocol, since lots of people might have gotten into the habit of ignoring requirements documents. > > Kendall Clark -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 21 March 2005 19:37:23 UTC