W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > April 2005

Re: Comments on SPARQL 17-Feb-2005 draft (DESCRIBE)

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 00:32:52 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org

At 14:13 08/04/05 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:

> > 2. DESCRIBE result type
> >
> > I think the desired effect could be achieved using standard SPARQL queries
> > with some special RDF vocabulary, or maybe in conjunction with something
> > like Larry Masinter's tdb: URI scheme proposal
> > (http://larry.masinter.net/duri.html).  Therefore, I think it has NO PLACE
> > in the base SPARQL specification, since it adds to implementer burden
> > without creating any otherwise-unavailable functionality.
>I think the WG considered this argument under the DESCRIBE issue.
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#DESCRIBE
>which, by the way, was closed without consensus, i.e. over an
>objection. So that will have to get reviewed when we request CR/PR.
>Though I don't see sufficient new information to re-open this issue in
>the WG, I have noted your comment under the DESCRIBE issue so that it
>will be part of that review.
>Feel free to add any further arguments that perhaps the WG
>has not considered, and please stay tuned for our last call
>documents; I hope by then we will have achieved a greater
>level of consensus.

I don't have any new information, but I'm rather surprised that the 
argument that the same effect intended for DESCRIBE can be achieved using 
the query language without it is apparently discounted by the working 
group.  By the argument offered, DESCRIBE is completely unnecessary, so why 
would anyone want to keep it?  I don't see any positive argument for it 
indicated under the issue description cited above.


Graham Klyne
For email:
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2005 00:00:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:06 UTC