- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:52:38 +0100
- 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. >> >>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Aug/0063 >> >> >>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. ]] Andy > > Cheers, > Kendall > -- > Sad songs and waltzes aren't selling this year... --Cake >
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2005 12:52:58 UTC