- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:39:06 +0200
- To: "ext Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "ext Danny Ayers" <danny666@virgilio.it>, "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>, "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, <www-rdf-rules@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On Thursday, Nov 20, 2003, at 20:38 Europe/Helsinki, ext Joshua Allen
wrote:
> Finally, with RDF data model we have crap; no defacto way of storing
> models, no de-facto access API, no de-facto or prominent query
> mechanisms, no de-facto update mechanism. Anyone wanting to store or
> query data models is stuck in a ghetto of half-implemented and
> confusingly contradictory houses of cards. But despite the fact that
> we
> don't even have the slightest freekin' semblance of a consistent
> data-access architecture, we still have people arguing religiously
> about
> HOW IT SHOULD USE PUT/GET! Does anyone else see something slightly
> inverted about priorities here?
>
>
1. I agree.
2. This is what has motivated my work on both URIQA and RDFQ.
3. There is an active initiative working towards the formation of
an RDF Query WG to address precisely these issues.
Cheers,
Patrick
Received on Friday, 21 November 2003 04:07:40 UTC