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

Re: Options on SPARQL endpoint descriptions...

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:36:26 +0100
Message-Id: <35EFC09C-0E93-4303-B74E-712830E1A494@garlik.com>
To: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 13 Aug 2009, at 03:24, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> Greg Williams wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:01:00PM +0100, Axel Polleres said:
>>> If we rule out Option 5 entirely, we have no defined way of  
>>> querying the service description directly over the very SPARQL  
>>> endpoint, do we want that? I feel somehow this could be useful,  
>>> but don't really have a strong opinion about it either. We could  
>>> recommend some variant of Option 5 on top of one of the others  
>>> informally and simply not enforce everybody to support it?
>> Doesn't option 7 (conneg) give you this for free? By using the  
>> service
>> URI in a FROM clause, the service description RDF could be pulled  
>> in by
>> the endpoint (assuming it didn't keep it loaded) and be queried.
>
> Only for stores that dereference HTTP URIs that are part of a  
> query's dataset. Some don't (or aren't always configured to),  
> instead treating graph URIs simply as identifiers within a quad store.

Sure, but the description could include the information about whether  
that would work...

- Steve
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 09:37:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:39 GMT