- From: Vasiliy Faronov <vfaronov@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 17:02:22 +0400
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
Dan Brickley wrote: > This is where the delicate tradeoffs come into play, and where we > would all benefit if there were conventions for documenting the > information needs (eg. SPARQL templates) of consuming apps. That's a nice idea. I wouldn't say SPARQL templates though, as that's somewhat limiting and not easily machine-processable. An RDF vocabulary for describing information needs and/or capabilities, with predicates like "can_understand_class" or "can_infer", would be sufficiently abstract and also link nicely into the existing descriptions of the vocabularies in question. (And SPARQL 1.1 adds URIs for entailment regimes I think?) Has anything like this been done already? -- Vasiliy Faronov
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2010 13:03:02 UTC