- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:45:47 +0000
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Cc: Yoshio FUKUSHIGE <fuku@w3.org>, 'RDF Data Access Working Group' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 14:05 -0500, Bijan Parsia wrote: > On Mar 22, 2005, at 1:28 PM, Yoshio FUKUSHIGE wrote: > [snip] > > Sorry for asking such question at this time of the year, > > but I prefer <var name="foo"></var>-ish thing. > > Big +1. > > It will also help with making it more W3C XML Schemable, which I regard > important, both in general and for teh WSDL. I presented two designs to the WG, attached to my emails: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0556.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0364.html to which the comments on XML-style and schemas support were mostly: KendallC: I(Dave said): > Depends on how important schema validation is, I guess. Kendall said: > I think it's overrated generally, but especially so here. -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004OctDec/0367.html I guess UMD has changed position :) Which is perfectly fine. and HowardK: > In terms of XQuery, I don't think there's a great difference between the two > result formats. -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0572.html Given no other big response influencing my choice after the last email, and subsequent telcon discussions, I chose the simplest thing that would work. Right now I can see there are more motivations for the complex form, with the schema support. The result2* attachments to the 0364.html email include the schema-full design I made in November but it will need updating for later changes and to deal with other comments. Dave
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2005 14:46:21 UTC