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

Re: Service or graph store naming.

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 12:03:28 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTimXh8Bw3Pd-PvTmkbYPGr4dfac+Rd2ptMJexCz_@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com> wrote:
> Have we discussed this before?

Yes, see my My May 18th 2010 email
in response to you regarding this.  Eventually, an editor's note was
added in the last publication cycle in order to solicit feedback from
the community as well as the WG.

> 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.

Not *any* URI, just the URI of an instance of sd:Dataset.  This might
be a little off topic, but I generally think of two categories of
"follow your nose" (or 'linked data') traversal through a network of
RDF: a) one where the client doesn't have any guidance about which URI
should be followed and there is a general assumption that most RDF
URIs are dereferencable and b) one where the vocabulary indicates
which URIs are dereferenceable (such as terms like owl:imports,
rdfs:seeAlso, etc.).  I share the same concerns you have about the
first category, but this mechanism uses the second one.

> 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.

So, in the currently published dataset protocol document, the editor's
note in that section says:

The Service Description document provides an RDF vocabulary term
(sd:Dataset) that can be used in statements about a SPARQL Dataset,
however, it is not clear what URI the client can use to request such a
service description that provides the URI of the Network-manipulable
Graph Store (typed as an instance of sd:Dataset).


Is this an improper use of the sd:Dataset term? Currently, the section
in the Service Description editor's draft about this term says: "An
instance of sd:Dataset represents a RDF Dataset comprised of a default
graph and zero or more named graphs."

-- Chime
Received on Sunday, 6 February 2011 17:04:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:03 UTC