- From: McBride, Brian <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 11:02:28 -0000
- To: "'Art Barstow'" <barstow@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Hi Art, > Dan, > > I think an effort like this is a great idea. However, > given the relatively large list of recorded issues at: > > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/ > > and: > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Sep/0240.html > I've been updating this list periodically. The current version is at: http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/bwm/rdf/issues.htm > I wonder if such an effort would be premature. That is, > given that the "resolution" of some of these issues is > likely to result in changes/clarifcations in the RDF specs, > it seems like the issues should be "formally" addressed > first. It is hard to define and implement an API when its not clear exactly what functionality its supposed to support. On the other hand, maybe this burst of enthusiasm for getting an API nailed down will give us the momentum to nail the model issues at the same time. As Dave Beckett recently pointed out they are mutually dependent. I had reason recently to look over the XML Query work that is ongoing and I was hugely impressed by the approach they have taken. They are developing requirements, a data model and a query algebra. I don't think they've even started to consider the syntax of a query language yet. That's a detail that can come later. In our case it seems like we'd need to begin with requirements and a programming model. Brian McBride HPLabs
Received on Sunday, 12 November 2000 06:02:34 UTC