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

Re: twinql Retrospective motivates DESCRIBE refinement?

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:52:38 +0100
Message-ID: <433A9216.7010501@hp.com>
To: kendall@monkeyfist.com
CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

Kendall Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 08:33:25AM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>>Did we consider this design already?
>>>   As I write, it occurs to me that some way to say which method is  
>>>being (server -> client), or should be (client -> server), used for  
>>>DESCRIBE would be desirable -- I'd like my clients to know that  
>>>they're getting CBDs, or the clients might wish to ask for a certain  
>>>kind of description.
>>I'm considering re-opening issues#DESCRIBE. Advice is welcome.
> Is this orthogonal or related to SADDLE? I would have thought such
> description (the server does *foo* when the client says DESCRIBE) would have
> been a SADDLE issue, though I guess the flip side is that the client says to
> the server "I want you to do *bar* when I say DESCRIBE".

I consider to a SADDLE matter - the requirement that the clients know they are 
getting CBDs and that is met by a service description.

[[ The only possible limitation I can envisage is that the client can't choose 
one out of a set of DESCRIBE choices but then if the service chooses to offer 
then as one bundle, it is the services choice - and it might make sense only 
to offer as a bundle anyway.  The comment was about knowing what's done, not 
choosing. ]]


> Cheers, 
> Kendall
> --
> Sad songs and waltzes aren't selling this year... --Cake
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2005 12:52:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:36 UTC