Re: sparql describe - options?!

> This would also give implementors a better definition of what they  
> MAY do in their implementations, allowing to quick-start with  
> existing code or at least an exact decision what is good here (and  
> year-long experience).

It may be of interest to the WG that twinql already uses CBDs as its  
concept of a description. Optional parameters to be provided to a  
DESCRIBE might be useful, but the use of CBDs is certainly a good  
initial recommendation.


Received on Tuesday, 15 November 2005 23:23:49 UTC