- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 22:57:51 +0100
- To: "Peter Ansell" <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-lod@w3.org
Peter, On 29 May 2008, at 22:10, Peter Ansell wrote: > It is a very good idea IMO to start putting sparql endpoints into RDF > descriptions of datasets. If you also indicate a typical triple > pattern that can be found at that endpoint/graph tuple you instantly > enable basic distributed sparql based on SPARQL GRAPH, where you > derive the information from a markup and not the expertise of the > querier. > > I think providing descriptions at the level of each SPARQL named graph > available at different endpoints is appropriate if people use GRAPHS > for macroscopic categorisation and not use a different graph for each > URI they loaded for instance. I know there is no standard governing > the use of SPARQL GRAPH's but it would be nice to have at least large > blobs available where you are most likely to find data matching a > triple pattern, whether it be DARQ's predicate idea (bad IMO) or some > combination of predicates with subjects and objects. A partial solution to this are Semantic Sitemaps [1]. They provide for discovery of SPARQL endpoints to RDF datasets, but don't have the detailed descriptions. There is a way of defining a dataset URI though, which could be used to provide additional meta-information in RDF. Richard [1] http://sw.deri.org/2007/07/sitemapextension/ > > > Linking topics up to each of these graphs via a widely available > resource is a good idea. Maintaining this list on a semantic wiki, or > autogenerating it based on multiple semantic wiki pages would be quite > nice, using template imports for instance, would be nice. > > Cheers, > > Peter >
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2008 21:58:40 UTC