W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2010

Service Description document

From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 22:24:16 -0400
Message-Id: <E63FAA0A-7936-4895-9113-F1C9AC770F90@evilfunhouse.com>
To: SPARQL Working Group WG <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Apr 25, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Axel Polleres wrote:

> Could you please send a mail to the list - if possible prior to the upcoming call - summarising:
> 1) Status of your document regarding implementation of decisions made at F2F3

I believe all but two of the points discussed at F2F3 are now in the editor's draft of the service description document:

First, I haven't heard back from anyone on my inquiry by email[1] about whether there's still any support for sd:CREATERequired. I think the current state of Update suggests that CREATE explicitly isn't required, so I'm not sure this is relevant anymore, but open to opinions to the contrary. If the silence on this issue means there's no support for it, then nothing needs to be changed in the doc.

The second issue is one involving the naming of named graphs in a dataset description. Sandro had brought this up at the F2F, and I hope he can weigh in on it. Basically, I had the modeling in the document like this:

[] a sd:Dataset ;
    sd:namedGraph [
        sd:name <graph-uri> ;
        sd:graph [ ... graph description goes here ... ] ;

I believe Sandro's concern was the use of the URI <graph-uri> since we're not actually talking about the resource, but instead a name that we've locally given to the graph (hopefully he'll correct me if I'm mis-characterizing this). Instead, he suggested that it should be "graph-uri"^^xsd:anyURI. If we adopt this change then the document should clarify the rdfs:range of the sd:name property and the Example section should be updated accordingly.

> 2) Is the document ready for review? yes/no - if no, estimation by when?

Yes, modulo the issues above.

> 3) Open issues for publication of next draft? (planned pub date mid may)
> 4) Open issues for getting to last call ( if different from 3) )

* I'm waiting on ericP and Sandro to set up http://www.w3.org/ns/format/ for the serialization format descriptions. When that is done, I'll add text to the SD document pointing to it as a source of URIs for use with the sd:resultFormat property.

* Based on Nicholas Humfrey's recent email to the comments list[2], I'd like to gauge the group's feelings towards the service description being able to describe supported serialization formats for input (e.g. for the LOAD operation or for implementations that dereference FROM uris). We've already got a way to describe serialization formats for output (sd:resultFormat), so this would bring some symmetry to the descriptions.

* Finally, I'd like to improve the service description vocabulary RDF. The old version is online at


I'd like to flesh it out a bit (things like updating rdf:Properties to owl:{Datatype,Object}Properties, possibly splitting the wordy rdfs:labels into labels and comments, and adding the missing domains and ranges). I will try to get an updated version online and then would be happy to have feedback on the vocab RDF alongside reviews of the SD document.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0068.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Apr/0000.html
Received on Tuesday, 27 April 2010 02:24:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:00 UTC