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 09:59:55 +0200
Message-ID: <4AC1BE7B.3080504@w3.org>
To: Alexandre Passant <alexandre.passant@deri.org>
CC: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Alexandre Passant <alex@passant.org>
Merci!

Ivan

Alexandre Passant wrote:
> 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> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 

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 08:00:32 GMT

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