- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 13:09:46 -0400
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 12:57 -0400, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 17:43 +0100, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> >
> > > It seems to me the variation here is an impediment to
> > interoperability.
> > > If my code talks to a new sparql server, and doesn't know which of
> > these
> > > conventions is being used, how can it do its job?
> >
> > It might ask the store for graphs that fulfil certain criteria.
> >
> > Or there might be a SPARQL Service Description document that explains
> > what's in the graphs.
>
> Those would probably work in the SPARQL world, but I'm thinking of
> SPARQL as just an interactive pseudo-TriG document.
>
> Yes, the document could have a nearby document which tells you how to
> interpret it. But that sounds pretty awkward to me.
>
> Do we have a licensing use case?
>
> TimBL's foaf file contains:
>
> <> cc:license <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/>
>
> It'd be nice to have that kind of thing survive in some usable way
> through being fetched and passed on. Here, it's important that the
> subject and the fourth-column are the same.
To clarify: really just that the URL is re-constructable. It doesn't
have to be in the fourth-column, just not lost.
-- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2011 17:09:55 UTC