- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 08:57:41 -0500 (EST)
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <Andy_Seaborne@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: "'Geoff Chappell'" <geoff@sover.net>, "Libby Miller (E-mail)" <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>, "'www-rdf-rules@w3.org'" <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > Geoff, > > The style I would suggest is one of many small steps - trying to get a > regular flow of useful output, both so that everyone is informed and to let > implementers try out the ideas. We could start with requirements gathering > and use case examples. This would also draw on previous and related work. > > As to the scope of the work, it is what the people involved make of it. I > would like to see a framework in which query capabilities fit - not a single > set of funconality that every system must implement to be conformant. [...] Yes, we're definitely in "what we make of it" territory. Rather than launch a big RDF Query (and/or Rules) formal Working Group, we've decided to take a different approach for the time being. The www-rdf-rules list is here so that implementors can find out more about each other's systems, specifications, working assumptions... I've a hunch that a very limited, bare bones RDF query language could form the basis for some early interop testing amongst existing systems. One lesson I'd like to learn from this is how the limitations of such languages relate to practical use cases, and where the complexity/shippability tradeoffs lie. It'll certainly be more fun exploring this in the context of an Interest Group than in a Working Group, I think. Once we've got a better sense for the options available, I'd like to start discussions that are more explicitly about the chartering of a proper Working Group in this area... Dan RDF Interest Group chair -- mailto:danbri@w3.org http://www.w3.org/People/DanBri/
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2001 08:58:47 UTC