W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-rules@w3.org > November 2001

RE: Scope

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>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0111140850410.22318-100000@tux.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...


RDF Interest Group chair

Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2001 08:58:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:46:14 UTC