- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@richmondinformatics.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 09:28:29 +0100
- To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 29 Mar 2006, at 23:06, Dan Connolly wrote: > > In reviewing our request for CR, > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/crq349 > there was a lot of concern about interoperability > around DESCRIBE. TimBL took a close look at CBD > and MSG from > http://semanticweb.deit.univpm.it/submissions/www2005/ > WWW2005_signignRDF.pdf > and looked briefly at GK's recent proposal > http://www.w3.org/mid/4427D376.9070504@ninebynine.org > and concluded that this issue merits considerable further work. > We talked about the possibility of postponing the issue > and marking the DESCRIBE syntax "reserved for future use" > and he was supportive of that. > > The issue is hereby re-opened. > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#DESCRIBE > > I look forward to proposals to close/postpone it. I gather Andy is > available to discuss them only thru this Friday. I am fully in favour of postponing it, and reserving the keyword (though note previous bad experiences from SQL in that direction). I can see that it's a useful capability, but the current level of underspecification makes me uneasy. GK's proposal seems like a good idea, and more generally applicable that the current syntax, but I'd rather have SPARQL published soon, and work on DESCRIBE in the future. - Steve
Received on Thursday, 30 March 2006 08:28:27 UTC