Re: Options on SPARQL endpoint descriptions...

Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> This seems to me the same as Option 5 - this just means that the service
> description data is queryable like any other data accessible by the
> SPARQL engine.

ok, wasn't entirely clear in which way, i.e. whether these should be in 
the default graph (wouldn't make sense to me), in a named graph (GRAPH, 
also limited sense only), or queryable by an explicit dataset clause 
(FROM). the latter would be the only one that makes sense to me, anyways.

If we rule out Option 5 entirely, we have no defined way of querying the 
service description directly over the very SPARQL endpoint, do we want 
that? I feel somehow this could be useful, but don't really have a 
strong opinion about it either. We could recommend some variant of 
Option 5 on top of one of the others informally and simply not enforce 
everybody to support it?

Axel


> Lee
> 
> Axel Polleres wrote:
>  > ... still catching up, looking at
>  > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009JulSep/0139.html
>  >
>  > and reflecting on what was discussed in the end of the telconf, it seems
>  > that the unspoken option 9 was something like having the endpoint
>  > description either in a named graph
>  >
>  > such that you could query over it using
>  >
>  >  GRAPH <endpoint>
>  >  or GRAPH <>
>  >
>  > or that queries using
>  >
>  >  FROM <endpoint>
>  >  FROM <>
>  >
>  > should/could be allowed to query the dervice description directly via
>  > the endpoint?
>  >
>  >
>  > not sure, guess that Orri answer to Action-80 will shed more light on 
> this.
>  >
>  > Axel
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
> 


-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, 
Galway
email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/

Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 22:01:49 UTC