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

Re: Review of Service Description document

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 06:40:42 +0100
Message-ID: <4B32FEDA.5020109@w3.org>
To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
CC: Alexandre Passant <Alexandre.Passant@deri.org>, W3C SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

just a quick note on RDFa: if you need help on an RDFa encoding, I would
be happy to help (but only in the new year:-)

Happy New Year (to all)


On 12/23/2009 11:53 PM, Gregory Williams wrote:
> On Dec 22, 2009, at 2:54 AM, Alexandre Passant wrote:
>> * 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.
> OK
>> * 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)
> OK, I'll clean up the RDF version and look into what it will take to get it published.
>> * 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"
> Good point.
>> * Section 3.2.3:
>> More details are welcome (but OK to leave as is for the current publishing)
> Agreed. I'll try to add some descriptive text.
>> * Section 3.3:
>> Some instances names start with a lowercase, should be better to use uppercase here (as done in the entailment URIs)
> Is this common for instances? I'm familiar with common practice regarding classes and properties, but not with similar practices for instances. I actually prefer the lowercase, but will change it if there's agreement on this point.
>> * Section 3.3.3:
>> "sd:dereferenceURLs" shouldn't it be "sd:dereferenceURIs" (URL / URI) ?
> Won't they necessarily be URLs if they can be dereferenced?
>> * 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)
> Not sure about this. Somebody (ericP?) had an example at some point of defining a custom language as comprising the base sparql query language with a specific set of extensions and functions. Let's discuss this on a future call.
>> * 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.
> I'm hesitant to add lots of OWL terms, but could probably be convinced. I notice that there's already one OWL statement in declaring sd:url an IFP.
>> 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.
> OK. Are there any specs that do this that I could draw on for styling? Inline turtle?
>> * 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/
> I used "www.example" to be consistent with the examples used in the SPARQL (1.0) Protocol for RDF document. I can change this if you think it's important, but if it's just a preference I might keep it the way it is for the sake of consistency.
>> 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 ?
> I'll change that. I have no preference here.
>> * References:
>> Ref to voiD should also be added.
> OK. I'll add it and mention it in describing the example.
> 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 Thursday, 24 December 2009 05:40:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:58 UTC