Core vs Extensions in data services
benjamin.gufler at in.tum.de
Tue Nov 14 00:55:48 PST 2006
seeing "single language, single bnf" as a decision point on the agenda
for thursdays telecon shows me I've probably misinterpreted the core vs.
extensions discussion (or I'm misinterpreting the point on the agenda).
On 2006-11-02 05:59, Doug Tody wrote:
> Hence, in defining
> ADQL we should probably not try to prejudge usage, and should rather
> merely define the language, leaving issues of capabilities to be defined
> when ADQL is used in some more specific context.
I agree on that defining what's core and what are extensions in the
language could probably be a disadvantage for certain services having
needs we didn't (or even couldn't) think of now.
However, imo defining the language as one big monolithic block is not
the best approach to solve this problem. By defining ADQL in a very
modular way, each service definition could then pick some of these
modules and define them as "required" for the service, leaving the
remaining modules "optional" or "extension".
Dipl.-Inf. Benjamin Gufler Lehrstuhl Informatik III
Tel. +49 89 289-17276 Fax +49 89 289-17263
Boltzmannstr. 3, 85748 Garching Raum FMI 02.11.035
More information about the voql-teg