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

Re: Review of SD document (ACTION-318)

From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 12:51:35 -0700
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CDBE17BA-B845-4782-87E6-066A8D43D2AA@evilfunhouse.com>
To: Alexandre Passant <Alexandre.Passant@deri.org>
On Sep 21, 2010, at 4:28 AM, Alexandre Passant wrote:

> * Section 2)
> 
> """
> 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.
> """
> 
> Was there a decision on the should / must for "service description should be made available in an RDF serialization".
> If the description is not available in RDF, that's not really useful imo.

Good point. The reason for this wording was that I think we didn't want to force endpoints to support service descriptions to be conformant with the Protocol. Looking at the preceding sentence, though, there's another SHOULD that I think takes care of that. So unless there are objections, I will change the text to be:

"SPARQL services made available via the SPARQL Protocol SHOULD return a service description document at the service URL. This service description MUST be made available in an RDF serialization, MAY be provided embedded in (X)HTML by RDFa, and SHOULD use content-negotiation if available in other RDF representations."

> "embedded in HTML" -> (X)HTML

Done.

> "or other RDF representations by using content negotiation." => I'd suggest "and SHOULD use content-negociation if available in other RDF representation"

Done.

> * Section 3)
> 
> """
> The SPARQL Service Description namespace IRI is:
> http://www.w3.org/ns/sparql-service-description#
> """
> 
> Probably better as an hyperlink.

Done.

> It currently redirects to a plain page that links to the RDF/XML or Turtle specs, but I would expect at least an HTML description of the vocab (which is the SD doc itself)
> Could we have
> http://www.w3.org/ns/sparql-service-description# redirected to SD document (if no specific header, and keep current conneg for .ttl / .rdf)

I don't have strong feelings on this. If there is support for this setup, I'll ask ivan if he can change the redirects to handle it.

> "An instance of sd:Language represents a subset of the SPARQL language" => I'd suggest "An instance of sd:Language represents one of the SPARQL languages"

I think the wording here came from a HCLS use case from ericP where we wanted a way to be able to describe not just the Query/Update distinction, but specific configurations of SPARQL w.r.t. optional features and/or extensions. I'm not sure of a better way to word this without actual examples of such configurations. Any thoughts?

> * Section 3.4)
> 
> Descriptions of domain / ranges (such as "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.") may be more readable using bullet points / several lines

This has been brought up several times. I formatted it this way just for consistency with the syntax of the RDFS document. Is there existing list-formatting in other specs that you'd prefer, or do you think I should just try to hack up some html myself?

thanks,
.greg
Received on Friday, 24 September 2010 19:52:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:43 GMT