- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 00:25:23 -0500
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Feb 15, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> On 15/02/11 16:31, Gregory Williams wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 2011, at 3:17 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>
>>>> • The RDF content returned from dereferencing a service URL<U>
>>>> must include one triple matching: ?service sd:url<U> .
>>>
>>> I don't think that is necessary. It is desirable for simple
>>> processing of the RDF but MUST is far too strong. After all the
>>> service may have different names (over time, your name, my name,
>>> bnode now, name later) - this is the semantic web and there is not
>>> usually a unique name assumption.
>>
>> Understood. Would you be happy with a "SHOULD"? I'm OK with "bnode
>> now, name later." What I'm worried about is "bnode now, name also
>> now" -- I don't want to make it more difficult for clients trying to
>> use service descriptions by requiring support for IFPs (or complex
>> queries trying to work around the lack of support for IFPs).
>
> SHOULD is acceptable - personally, I'd make it more of a style-of-RDF comment.
Andy,
Having discussed the conformance issue some more with Lee and Sandro, I think I'm more comfortable including some normative text. Rereading this thread, I'm wondering why you think the MUST language is too strong here. At one point I had text that said "MUST include one and only one triple matching", but I don't think the text above ("MUST include one triple matching") runs afoul of your concern about unique names. What do you think?
thanks,
.greg
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 05:25:54 UTC