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

comments: PA-2

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:02:10 -0400
Cc: "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <14A73F8D-28A4-4F35-B8A5-1DF823A739D2@deri.org>
To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Jun/0012.html

Greg, would you be available to draft a reply along the lines that we discussed here, i.e.

We will not standardise URIs for DESCRIBE behaviour, but if such existed then sd:feature could be used?

Thanks, 
Axel

On 24 Jun 2010, at 13:49, Gregory Williams wrote:

> On Jun 24, 2010, at 5:59 AM, Axel Polleres wrote:
> 
> > Before we send an official reply...some question to Greg, to the group:
> >
> > While we have not put elaborating more on DESCRIBE on our features list, I think the suggestion is valuable... however, in my feeling it only makes sense if there was at least one concrete proposal out there for defining such an algorithm, with a URI.
> > Is there such thing at the moment? I think it is out of scope to define it for us.
> 
> I don't think it makes sense for the WG to define URIs for the different kinds of descriptions (CBD, SCBD, IFCBD, etc.). Assuming someone else defines the URIs, though, we could either define a specific property for this purpose or you could use sd:feature right now to declare support for that description type. I'm not sure if this would totally satisfy the use cases people are thinking of, but this is exactly the sort of thing that sd:feature is meant to allow.
> 
> .greg
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 28 June 2010 15:02:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:42 GMT