W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > June 2011

RE: Further Comment on SPARQL 1.1 Service Description

From: Rob Vesse <rav08r@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:12:25 +0100
To: "'Gregory Williams'" <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
Cc: <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|c960ef6037d4de6fe6dc1bfccf7ba524n5QECp06rav08r|ecs.soton.ac.uk|005d01cc34cb$dbed01d0$93c70570$@soton.ac.uk>
Yes that answers my comment

Regards,

Rob Vesse

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-dawg-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Williams
> Sent: 27 June 2011 14:10
> To: Rob Vesse
> Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Further Comment on SPARQL 1.1 Service Description
> 
> On Feb 11, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Rob Vesse wrote:
> 
> > Hi
> >
> > I just noticed this part of the specification in Section 5 on
> Conformance:
> >
> > The returned RDF content MUST contain one and only one triple of the
> form:
> >
> > <service-URL> rdf:type sd:Service .
> >
> > This seems to be a somewhat heavy handed thing to mandate IMO.
> >
> > If I want to have a system that provides multiple endpoints for
> Update/Query etc why can't I define all the services of that system in
> a single service description?  This allows me to both have a dedicated
> URI in my system for returning the service description in addition to
> returning it when an appropriate GET/OPTIONS request is received at the
> various service URIs
> >
> > This seems to unnecessarily make service discovery (which surely is
> part of the point of having service descriptions) harder than it needs
> to be.
> >
> > Provided each service has a different <service-URL> consuming clients
> can easily find the services they actually want even if multiple
> services are defined in the description so why mandate only 1 instance
> of sd:Service per Service Description document?
> 
> 
> The intention of that requirement wasn't to restrict a SD document to
> only describing one service, but merely that if the SD document was
> retrieved from some URI, U, then U must be described as a sd:Service in
> the SD. That being said, the old text was poorly worded and didn't
> effectively communicate the intention. The latest working draft of the
> Service Description document has changes that are meant to clarify this
> point. The new conformance requirement is that the SD RDF returned from
> an endpoint must contain at least one triple matching that pattern {
> ?service sd:endpoint <service-endpoint-URL> } (where <service-endpoint-
> URL> is the URL from which the service description document was
> retrieved). This should allow you to describe both multiple services in
> a SD document as well as having multiple endpoint URLs for a single
> service.
> 
> 
> We would be grateful if you would acknowledge that your comments have
> been answered by sending a reply to this mailing list.
> 
> Regards, Gregory Williams, on behalf of the SPARQL WG.
> 
Received on Monday, 27 June 2011 13:13:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 June 2011 13:13:35 GMT