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

Review of Service Description document

From: Alexandre Passant <alexandre.passant@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:54:27 +0000
Message-Id: <BA738FD7-24AB-49D0-914C-60BE0D63C0EA@deri.org>
To: W3C SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Hi,

Here are my comments / questions regarding the Service Description document [1].
I'm OK for publishing the document with these (mostly minor) changes.

* Title is "Service Description" but the document alternates "Service Description" and "Service Descriptions", i.e. singular and plural forms. That should be fixed before publication

* B1 must be removed from the T.O.C.

* I'd like the vocab to be online at http://www.w3.org/ns/sparql-service-description# before publishing the document (OK to postpone if it takes too long to get that URI available)

* Section 2: 
"This service description should be made available in an RDF serialization, but may also be provided embedded in HTML by RDFa, or other RDF representations by using content negotiation."
Since RDFa is a RDF serialization, I'd avoid using "but" and replace by (however, not being a native speaker, I may be wrong here)
"This service description should be made available in an RDF serialization, and may be provided embedded in HTML by RDFa, or other RDF representations by using content negotiation"

* Section 3.2.3:
More details are welcome (but OK to leave as is for the current publishing)

* Section 3.3:
Some instances names start with a lowercase, should be better to use uppercase here (as done in the entailment URIs)

* Section 3.3.3:
"sd:dereferenceURLs" shouldn't it be "sd:dereferenceURIs" (URL / URI) ?

* 3.4.8 - sd:supportedLanguage
Current range is sd:Language which means that people can use any sd:Language instance here, while there are some provided by the vocabulary to comply with the current SPARQL spec., i.e. sd:SPARQLQuery and sd:SPARQLUpdate. While this will be more restrictive, it could be better to have the range of sd:supportedLanguage limited to these two instances. (OK to postpone if it requires discussions that cannot be addressed quickly)

* Section 3.4:
For consistency, as for each class (in 3.3), you mention they are instances of rdfs:Class, property descriptions should mention that they are instances of DatatypeProperty / ObjectProperty.
BTW, as a matter of personal taste, instead having these as sentences, esp. for long ones as for "sd:defaultEntailmentRegime is an rdfs:subPropertyOf sd:feature. The rdfs:domain of sd:defaultEntailmentRegime is sd:Service. The rdfs:range of sd:defaultEntailmentRegime is sd:EntailmentRegime.", it might be better to have RDF code for each of these descriptions.

* Section 4: 
www.example -> www.example.org
http://example/ -> http://www.example.org/ (appear 3 times)
at the URL http://www.example/sparql/ -> at the URL http://www.example.org/sparql/

http://www.example/named-graph/
It's imo a bit weird to have a graph ending with a / but I guess there is no constraints about that ?

* References:
Ref to voiD should also be added.

Best,

Alex.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/service-description-1.1/xmlspec.xml

--
Dr. Alexandre Passant
Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Galway
:me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .
Received on Tuesday, 22 December 2009 10:55:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:40 GMT