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>
Gregg,

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
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0202.html)
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).
]]]

s/Network-manipulable/

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 GMT

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