W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: variables as nodes? (re: XML Binding Format)

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>
Message-Id: <1111589147.24655.36.camel@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

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:

to which the comments on XML-style and schemas support were mostly:

  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.

Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2005 14:46:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:33 UTC