Re: sparql describe - options?! [OK?]

On Feb 17, 2006, at 17:25, ext Richard Newman wrote:

> Dan,
>   I would perhaps be inclined to include the word 'generic':
> "Possible generic mechanisms for..."

I also feel there is value including the word 'generic' as above.

>   Otherwise, that seems like enough of a reference for me. I'll let  
> Patrick shepherd this issue, of course.

I apprecaite the WG taking the time to consider these concerns.

The proposed text is certainly a move in the right direction, however,
I would have liked to have seen such a reference to CBDs expressed in
a form that would provide more guidance to implementors who have no
idea what form of description to return. E.g.

    "Possible generic mechanisms for deciding what information to return
    include Concise Bounded Descriptions [CBD] which can offer a  
    default form of description in the absence of any special  

The above text, or something akin to it, would be far better, as it
provides very important guidance to implementors facing the question
"How do I respond to a DESCRIBE request if I myself have no special
goals/features in mind for such descriptions?" And that is a question
that most, if not all, implementors will eventually have to ask, and
I think the SPARQL rec should provide an answer, even if only through
a somewhat subtle pointing of the elbow...



> -R
> On 17 Feb 2006, at 14:27, Dan Connolly wrote:
>> Apologies for the delay in responding...
>> On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 17:30 -0600, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I would be happy to work with the DAWG to include coverage
>>> of CBDs as a recommended, albeit optional, form of description
>>> in SPARQL; even in a non-normative appendix of the recommendation.
>>> The existing W3C Member Submission for CBDs would offer a good
>>> starting point.
>> We added this text:
>> [[
>> Other possible mechanisms for deciding what information to return
>> include Concise Bounded Descriptions [CBD].
>> ...
>> [CBD]
>>         CBD - Concise Bounded Description, Patrick Stickler,  
>> Nokia, W3C
>>         Member Submission, 3 June 2005.
>> ]]
>>  --
>> Leo, Richard, Patrick, please let us know whether this is a
>> satisfactory response to this comment.

Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2006 12:19:14 UTC