- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 11:32:43 -0500
- To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Feb 8, 2011, at 6:27 PM, Steve Harris wrote:
> On 2011-02-08, at 22:28, Gregory Williams wrote:
>>
>> This is a misunderstanding. In my last email I tried to make clear that what's in the document right now was a regression from what was intended. The intention was only { [] sd:url ?SERVICE }, but I'm starting to think the original motivation for that isn't actually that great, and we might want to change it to just { ?SERVICE a sd:Service } (and maybe drop sd:url). I think having both would be confusing and not provide that much benefit. Thoughts on this?
>
> Yes, I'd rather see only one way of providing the URI, I don't really care which one.
My recollection on why the SD was designed this way:
[] a sd:Service ; sd:url </sparql>
was based on use cases from Steve. This seems to have been a mistake, and unless anyone objects, I intend to drop the sd:url property entirely, changing the design to have the service resource be the endpoint url. That would mean:
</sparql> a sd:Service .
Does anyone have any comments before I make this change?
thanks,
.greg
Received on Friday, 11 February 2011 16:33:14 UTC