[wbs] Agfa-Gevaert N. V. response to 'RDF Data Access WG: initial design'

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