Re: Proposal: Searching XML

On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Robert Sanderson wrote:

>
> Hi Dan,
>
> > BTW If folk are Web-izing Z39.50, feedback on the W3C SOAP 1.2 designs
> > would be useful. I think Last Call is expected soon.
>
> Nail down what a 'Reasonable and Non Discriminatory' Patent is in real
> terms. Or it seems likely that the Open Source community won't implement
> it and will just migrate to XML-RPC or other solution which /isn't/ patent
> encumbered.  Preferably tell MS and IBM to jump in a lake with their RAND
> licences and stay with just RF.

I'm sorry, I haven't followed any recent CNET speculation in this area.

The XML Protocol WG charter seems clear enough to me:

From http://www.w3.org/2000/09/XML-Protocol-Charter

	[[
	5.7 Intellectual Property

	W3C promotes an open working environment. Whenever possible, technical
	decisions should be made unencumbered by intellectual property right (IPR)
	claims. W3C's policy for intellectual property is set out in section 1.5
	of the W3C Process document.

	Members of the XML Protocol Working Group and any other Working Group
	constituted within the XML Protocol Activity are expected to disclose any
	intellectual property they have in this area. Any intellectual property
	essential to implement specifications produced by this Activity must be at
	least available for licensing on a royalty-free basis. At the suggestion
	of the Working Group, and at the discretion of the Director of W3C,
	technologies may be accepted if they are licensed on reasonable,
	non-discriminatory terms.

	Members disclose patent and other IPR claims by sending email to an
	archived mailing list that is readable by Members and the W3C team:
	patent-issues@w3.org. Members must disclose all IPR claims to this mailing
	list but they may also copy other recipients.
	]]


> CNET quoted me as saying that the only thing to rain on Google's API
> parade is the 'dark cloud looming' over it of the patents on SOAP and
> WSDL and for once it's not taken out of context.

As I say, I missed whatever CNET had to say on this. I do read WG charters
carefully though, and the Web Services Description WG charter is good
enough for me.

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/
		-> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/
			-> http://www.w3.org/2002/01/ws-desc-charter
	[[
	5.7 Intellectual Property
	This WG will work on a  royalty-free basis, as defined in the W3C
	Current Patent Practice document. The Working Group is thus obliged to
	produce a specification which relies only on intellectual property
	available on a royalty-free basis.
	]]

I have no idea (since it isn't my current area of work) what the deal is
with WSDL, either technically (whether it meets this WGs needs) or in IPR
terms.


> > I'd (speaking as a developer) certainly be interested in seeing this
> > Searching XML proposal worked through and implemented. I'm not sure W3C
> > are shopping for an IR protocol right now, but anything that bridges the
> > XML mainstream technologies with Z39.50 can only be good for the digital
> > library community.
>
> Yep.  We'd implement it for sure.  On the other hand, the practical
> advantages of it aren't as high as you might expect. Unless you know what
> the data is like, you can't really send a sensible XPATH search.
> If without prior knowledge of the database, you can't send a useful XPATH
> search, then you might as well just configure enumerated access points.
> (Which is what we do now, mapped to XPATH (almost) in the configfile)

This is often the case, in all kinds of querying scenarios. You need to
know pretty much what's in (quantity, quality, attributes/fields etc) there
before building apps that query some repository. I think this is true of
RDF, SQL, XML and Z39.50 query. As the data models get more complex (er,
sophisticated, expressive, I mean) so does the potential for saying the
same thing in lots of ways. RDF limits the expressivity of unconstrained
wellformed XML, but simple flattened attribute/value records limit it
still further.

Back on the 'unless you know what the data is like', its such a pity the
old WHOIS++ centroids and CIP stuff never caught on. Maybe it's time
hasn't yet come...

Dan


-- 
mailto:danbri@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/People/DanBri/

Received on Saturday, 20 April 2002 19:11:50 UTC