- From: WBS Mailer on behalf of <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 18:55:02 +0000
- To: jos.deroo@agfa.com, www-archive@w3.org
Here are the answers submitted to 'RDF Data Access WG: initial design' (RDF Data Access Working Group) for Agfa-Gevaert N. V. by Jos De Roo. --------------------------------- Which RDF query language design(s) do you support? ---- Which designs do you support? Please order them most to least favorite. Please share any rationale you can think of. Feel free to note issues in your comments. This should allow the WG to focus on those that are supported by a critical mass of the WG; perhaps a single leader will emerge. Choices are taken from KC's summary of 28 Jun. See also ftf2 reading list. Mail the WG if you want to add or modify a choice; preferably before the 29 June telcon or at least by 1 July. @@background: stuff from charter... Please select the rank-order (1 to 10) for the options you think are acceptable (i.e. you can live with it) , where 1 is the most preferred, 2 the next best and so on... You also have a don't mind and a don't want option. * [ Don't mind ] Choice: cf SeRQL evaluation 2 Jun | * [ 3 ] Choice: cf RDQL functionality vs. DAWG requirements 1 June. | * [ Don't mind ] Choice: REX evaluation 9Jun | * [ Don't mind ] Choice: iTQL evaluation 4Jun | * [ 2 ] Choice: BRQL msg to WG, BRQL ref | * [ Don't mind ] Choice: XSRL ref | * [ Don't mind ] Choice: Algae2 ref | * [ Don't mind ] Choice: Versa ref | * [ 1 ] Choice: N3QL discussion | * [ Don't mind ] Choice: Evaluation result of the TriQL, TriQL ref | Rationale: am used to use N3 as a very concise, sharp and neutral notation for data, query, results, ... and we now have positive implementation experience with N3QL e.g. querying http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2004/04test/danP.n3 with http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2004/04test/danQ.n3 results in http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2004/04test/danE.n3 Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): moved BRQL to position 2 after positive test experience with http://jena.hpl.hp.com/~afs/BRQL/BRQL-0.2.zip --------------------------------- Which protocol design(s) do you support? ---- Please rank them best (1) to worst (n). If you know of another design that might get support of some WG members, please mail it to the WG. (e.g. tucana's BEEP and RMI stuff) Please select the rank-order (1 to 2) for the options you think are acceptable (i.e. you can live with it) , where 1 is the most preferred, 2 the next best and so on... You also have a don't mind and a don't want option. * [ 2 ] Choice: ACTION: writeup of joseki in response to action taken at last DAW G telcon 1 Jun esp Joseke WebAPI | * [ 1 ] Choice: N3QL discussion esp protocol section of N3QL spec | Rationale: compact result format e.g. q:result q:is ("Cambridge" 42.3 -71.1), ("Boston" 42.19 -71.05). Comments (or a URI pointing to your comments): These answers were last modified on 1 July 2004 at 14:50:42 E.S.T. by Jos De Roo You can check and modify your answers at http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35463/initdn/ until 2004-07-05. Regards, The Automatic WBS Mailer
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2004 14:55:06 UTC