W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: Service or graph store naming.

From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 10:14:44 -0500
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <AEEFD5E0-7F1A-432E-B893-C2030E140480@evilfunhouse.com>
To: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
On Feb 5, 2011, at 12:27 AM, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:

>> There may be multiple services (endpoints) on one graph store.
>> In Fuseki, I currently have both a service URI and a graph store URI
>> 
>> If the graph store is: http://host/dataset
>> 
>> The services are:
>> 
>> # RDF Dataset HTTP Protocol
>> http://host/graphstore/data
>> ..snip..
>> My preference is for http://host/graphstore?graph=... to mean that
>> http://host/graphstore is the graph store.
> 
> Currently, http://host/graphstore is considered the Dataset HTTP
> Protocol service.  There is an assumption that the service location is
> known apriori and the graph store URI is described in its service
> description document.  So the follow-your-nose pattern of discovery
> is:
> 
> GET .. dataset protocol service URL .. HTTP/1.1
> Host: ..hostname..
> 
> returns
> 
> @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
> @prefix sd: <http://www.w3.org/ns/sparql-service-description#> .
> 
> [] a sd:Service;
>   sd:defaultDatasetDescription  <http://host/graphstore>
> <http://host/graphstore> a sd:Dataset; ..snip..


Have we discussed this before? Until this thread I didn't realize anyone was expecting the service description to have any relationship with the dataset protocol. I'm a bit uncomfortable with only having a "follow your nose" pattern of discovery for a graph store URI in the service description. I worry that it will lead to a situation where software tries to dereference any URI used in a SD dataset description, even for the (many?) services that don't implement the dataset protocol.

I'm not entirely opposed to aligning the SD document with the dataset protocol, but I've never developed it with that connection in mind and had always assumed that at this stage it was only meant to work with the (non-dataset) protocol.

.greg
Received on Sunday, 6 February 2011 15:15:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:45 GMT