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

Re: service description vocabulary

From: Alexandre Passant <alexandre.passant@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:50:19 +0100
Cc: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Alexandre Passant <alex@passant.org>
Message-Id: <A1315BCB-41D0-43C5-BE2B-1992766C8FC7@deri.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Hi,

On 29 Sep 2009, at 08:39, Ivan Herman wrote:

>
>
> 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...

I discussed that a few months ago and it seemed they wanted to see how  
voiD is being deployed, etc. before going that way.
But things evolved in the right direction so I'll pass the idea around  
again, I also think it would make a lot of sense.

Alex.

>
> Ivan
>
>
>
>>
>> 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

--
Dr. Alexandre Passant
Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Galway
:me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 07:51:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:08:28 GMT