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

Re: Service or graph store naming.

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:49:19 +0000
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <86B2B0E5-034E-48AF-B2E5-74180347A415@deri.org>
To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>

On 11 Feb 2011, at 16:32, Gregory Williams wrote:

> 
> 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:
> 

Are you talking about this thread

 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009JulSep/0193.html

? 

> [] a sd:Service ; sd:url </sparql>

the old thread I am quoting had <>, not [] at some point.

> 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?

Without having caught up fully on the old thread, I am, frankly, still not quite clear whether any of the concerns 
back in the 2009 discussion still would be affected by that decision... 
I had understood that sd:url was meant to point to a "standard" url where the "real" service was accessible, e.g. if the service description was retrieved via proxy... what you're saying is that this is not an issue and would also work with simply  the url in the subject, right?
Wouldn't something like sd:url still be useful to point to a "standard" URL for an endpoint that is accessible via different URLs?

Axel

> 
> thanks,
> .greg
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 14 February 2011 11:49:55 GMT

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