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

Re: sparql describe - options?!

From: Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:23:44 -0800
Message-Id: <FE8C57EE-8B33-4ED3-8EF0-3EADD4AAFA8E@reading.ac.uk>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
To: Leo Sauermann <leo@gnowsis.com>

> This would also give implementors a better definition of what they  
> MAY do in their implementations, allowing to quick-start with  
> existing code or at least an exact decision what is good here (and  
> year-long experience).

It may be of interest to the WG that twinql already uses CBDs as its  
concept of a description. Optional parameters to be provided to a  
DESCRIBE might be useful, but the use of CBDs is certainly a good  
initial recommendation.

-R
Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2005 23:23:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:49 GMT