Re: Formalising DESCRIBEs; the result graph

Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
> Anyway, the specification of the result graph is something that we do 
> not have very strong opinions about. What we do feel strongly about is 
> that there is a such a result graph that all endpoints should 
> implement, and that DESCRIBE is formally specified.


My gut feeling on this is that it's not a major interoperability concern 
since DESCRIBE is a) not a normative part of SPARQL and b) designed to 
be implementation-specific (i.e. DESCRIBE queries are not expected to be 
portable from implementation to implementation).

I do think that describe-implementation-strategy would be a good thing 
to include within an endpoint's service description (should the WG 
choose to pursue service descriptions). URIs could be minted (both by 
the WG and/or by the community) for things like CBD, MSG, and other 
constructs. What do you think of this approach?

Does anyone else have a strong feeling about defining a default 
implementation of DESCRIBE and/or allowing the query to select a 
specific implementation a la ?


Received on Friday, 17 April 2009 05:44:45 UTC