W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > February 2006

Re: sparql describe - options?! [OK?]

From: Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:25:07 -0800
Message-Id: <9F8A954E-AF9B-414B-BBDE-45B99668D1B5@reading.ac.uk>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>

Dan,
   I would perhaps be inclined to include the word 'generic':

"Possible generic mechanisms for..."

   Otherwise, that seems like enough of a reference for me. I'll let  
Patrick shepherd this issue, of course.

-R


On 17 Feb 2006, at 14:27, Dan Connolly wrote:

>
> Apologies for the delay in responding...
>
> On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 17:30 -0600, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> [...]
>> I would be happy to work with the DAWG to include coverage
>> of CBDs as a recommended, albeit optional, form of description
>> in SPARQL; even in a non-normative appendix of the recommendation.
>> The existing W3C Member Submission for CBDs would offer a good
>> starting point.
>
> We added this text:
>
> [[
> Other possible mechanisms for deciding what information to return
> include Concise Bounded Descriptions [CBD].
>
> ...
>
> [CBD]
>         CBD - Concise Bounded Description, Patrick Stickler, Nokia,  
> W3C
>         Member Submission, 3 June 2005.
> ]]
>  -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#describe
>
> Leo, Richard, Patrick, please let us know whether this is a
> satisfactory response to this comment.
Received on Friday, 17 February 2006 23:25:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:50 GMT