- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:30:15 -0400
- To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
- Cc: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
On Aug 12, 2009, at 10:24 PM, 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. Is it unreasonable to hope that if we went with conneg, stores that *didn't* dereference HTTP URIs but *did* provide a service description might keep the service description in the quad store? Also, I support Steve's point that the service description could indicate whether (and how/where) a description could be queried. .greg
Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 02:31:00 UTC