- From: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
- Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 17:46:32 +0200
- To: "Svensson, Lars" <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
- Cc: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
To my understanding, in a resource-centric model resources have a description containing statements available about them. When you try split it into parts, then you involve documents or graphs and go beyond the resource-centric model. On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de> wrote: > Martynas, > >> I am not convinced your use case requires a whole new concept (and >> following implementations) of "Linked Data profiles". >> >> I have outlined practical solutions you already can use now: >> 1. use a single description including all vocabularies > > I have real customers that say already now that this solution is not acceptable to them. > >> 2. make separate resources with separate descriptions > > Could work, but I prefer a resource-centric model where I simply deliver different descriptions about the same resource. > >> 3. give the client SPARQL access > > Not all clients want to talk sparql. > >> It seems to me that you have a hypothetical solution and are looking >> for a problem. > > Might be. I'm still not convinced of the opposite being true, though. > > Best, > > Lars
Received on Thursday, 7 May 2015 15:47:00 UTC