W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Formalising DESCRIBEs; the result graph

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:44:05 -0400
Message-ID: <49E81725.3030805@thefigtrees.net>
To: Kjetil Kjernsmo <Kjetil.Kjernsmo@computas.com>
CC: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
> Anyway, the specification of the result graph is something that we do 
> not have very strong opinions about. What we do feel strongly about is 
> that there is a such a result graph that all endpoints should 
> implement, and that DESCRIBE is formally specified.


My gut feeling on this is that it's not a major interoperability concern 
since DESCRIBE is a) not a normative part of SPARQL and b) designed to 
be implementation-specific (i.e. DESCRIBE queries are not expected to be 
portable from implementation to implementation).

I do think that describe-implementation-strategy would be a good thing 
to include within an endpoint's service description (should the WG 
choose to pursue service descriptions). URIs could be minted (both by 
the WG and/or by the community) for things like CBD, MSG, and other 
constructs. What do you think of this approach?

Does anyone else have a strong feeling about defining a default 
implementation of DESCRIBE and/or allowing the query to select a 
specific implementation a la 
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/Feature:ControlOfDescribeQueries ?

Received on Friday, 17 April 2009 05:44:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:56 UTC