- From: Frans Knibbe | Geodan <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl>
- Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 11:55:58 +0200
- To: public-lod@w3.org
- Message-ID: <5255282E.2050601@geodan.nl>
On 9-10-2013 2:18, Rob Warren wrote: > Agreed, a few small additions to void would go a long way to making automated query engines. Either that or good quality HTTP error reporting? -Rob Shouldn't that be the SPARQL Service Description instead of VoID? In my mind, SPARQL endpoints and datasets are separate entities. > > On 2013-10-08, at 11:45 AM, Leigh Dodds wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> As others have suggested, extending service descriptions would be the >> best way to do this. This might make a nice little community project. >> >> It would be useful to itemise a list of the type of limits that might >> be faced, then look at how best to model them. >> >> Perhaps something we could do on the list? >> >> Cheers, >> >> L. >> > -- -------------------------------------- *Geodan* President Kennedylaan 1 1079 MB Amsterdam (NL) T +31 (0)20 - 5711 347 E frans.knibbe@geodan.nl www.geodan.nl <http://www.geodan.nl> | disclaimer <http://www.geodan.nl/disclaimer> --------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 09:56:29 UTC