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: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 11:32:43 -0500
Message-Id: <64A196FE-E5CB-49A1-841A-0C1F87BB8942@evilfunhouse.com>
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 GMT

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