- From: Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>
- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:42:06 +0100
- To: "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
- CC: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
McBride, Brian wrote: >Reading the message I just sent (after our Christmas lunch, hic :) I'm >reminded of my guidance to self, that we should couch our answers in >terms of specific requirements of the work of SWBPD, i.e. are there >specific guarantees we would like to see for DESCRIBE or Wordnet or SKOS >resources. > > > I, and I assume most others in this WG, have only practical experience with RDF query languages of which a) the behavior is independent of the vocabulary being queried b) the nature of the query result is determinstic and specified in the documentation IF there are currently SPARQL or other implementations that implement DESCRIBE, AND these implementations return something reasonable in the general case, AND these implementations are easy to configure to return something useful in the specific (e.g. WordNet) case THEN this WG might try to develop some best practices ELSE it will be hard to say much in favor of DESCRIBE strictly in terms of best practices. I have no major problems with DESCRIBE, I have problems with it as an integral part of the core of the first version of the first common semantic web query language ever. If it is in a separate language or in the SPARQL extension profile or in SPARQL Level 3 or something the story would be different. Jacco
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2005 15:42:20 UTC