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

Re: service description vocabulary

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:39:23 +0200
Message-ID: <4AC1B9AB.6080901@w3.org>
To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
CC: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Alexandre Passant <alex@passant.org>

Gregory Williams wrote:
> On Sep 28, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Gregory Williams wrote:
>>> Let's not fixate on Void. If Void is not sufficient then the
>>> community will come up with something more comprehensive.
>> Well, I'm torn between saying "yes, absolutely," and thinking that
>> there are people (like the voiD folks) that are working on describing
>> RDF graphs, but that the SPARQL dataset case is specific enough to
>> SPARQL that maybe we should be providing the handful of properties to
>> allow leveraging graph description vocabularies in the context of
>> SPARQL datasets.
> After talking a bit with Andy on irc earlier, and hearing some good
> suggestions, I'd like to know what people think of the following
> compromise. The service description spec will simple have a
> sd:datasetDescription property (and an equivalent property for pointing
> to a dereferenceable URL for the same data) that will point to some sort
> of description of the dataset (with the specifics being left to others
> to sort out). Subsequently, a WG or IG note can be published minting new
> properties if necessary (such as ex:defaultGraph and ex:namedGraph) and
> detailing how a vocabulary like voiD can be used to describe a SPARQL
> dataset.

That does sound like a good way forward for me for this WG.

Actually, and an additional point: it would be good if VoiD had a clear
reference on W3C space, too. Alex, do you think it would be possible for
DERI & co to provide a member submission for VoiD? That could then be
referred to from such a note...


> This would keep the core service description vocabulary small, leaving
> the specifics of describing graphs and datasets to evolve in their own
> time, and focusing the vocabulary on just the important SPARQL-specific
> things. I expect some of the voiD supporters will follow up on this and
> push for more direct support to be included, but after hearing input
> from both sides and considering the available timeline and legitimate
> worries about trying to standardize this area too early, I think this is
> the best solution.
> Thoughts?
> thanks,
> .greg


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 07:39:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:57 UTC