Re: SPARQL Protocol for RDF

Seaborne, Andy wrote:

>> to your
>>knowledge would the current protocol allow asking something like a
>>remote CBD as in uriqa ?      
>>    
>>
>
>DESCRIBE, with a system that gives a CBD as the description, will do what you want.
>
>  
>
hurray! :-)

>Theer are many choices for a "description" and they depend on the nature of the data (don't do a blank node closure on a large collection of FOAF - it might not be that helpful).  
>
Noticed that ;-) stopping when bnodes have IFP would probably be more 
useful.. We need to formalize an MSG definition considering IFPs in it 
wondering how and if the properties change that much.

Thanks again,
Giovanni