- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 20:30:33 +0100
- To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- CC: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Gregory Williams wrote: > > On Aug 19, 2009, at 6:37 AM, Axel Polleres wrote: > > > > If the service description if fetched from the exact endpoint URI, > > and > > > the description looks like: > > > > > > <> a sparql:Endpoint ; > > > sparql:has sparql:featureA ; > > > ... > > > > If I understood correctly, the URI identifying the endpoint does not > > necessarily need to be the URL of the endpoint, ie. cf. [1] > > > > Greg suggests in [1] the vocabulary providing a separate predicate > > > > sd:url > > > > to point to the actual URL (in the case of your example probably the > > public one https://machine.example.com/myapp/sparql/), so is that > > really an issue? > > > > In other words, would the relative URL be really needed? > > I don't think this is something we've talked about much, but I did > that for two reasons: > > 1) Using sd:url is how DARQ did it, so there was an existing term to > use. > > 2) I used a blank node for the service because coining an arbitrary > URI seemed strange, but the access URL (where you get the service > description, or an html form, or something else) clearly isn't the > same resource as the service. > In which case sd:url rdfs:domain sd:Endpoint. sd:url a owl:InverseFunctionalProperty. may make sense, yes? Axel > .greg > -- Dr. Axel Polleres Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway email: axel.polleres@deri.org url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 19:31:14 UTC