Re: service description vocabulary

On 29 Sep 2009, at 02:41, Gregory Williams wrote:

> On Sep 28, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Gregory Williams wrote:
>
>>> Let's not fixate on Void. If Void is not sufficient then the  
>>> community will come up with something more comprehensive.
>>
>> Well, I'm torn between saying "yes, absolutely," and thinking that  
>> there are people (like the voiD folks) that are working on  
>> describing RDF graphs, but that the SPARQL dataset case is specific  
>> enough to SPARQL that maybe we should be providing the handful of  
>> properties to allow leveraging graph description vocabularies in  
>> the context of SPARQL datasets.
>
> After talking a bit with Andy on irc earlier, and hearing some good  
> suggestions, I'd like to know what people think of the following  
> compromise. The service description spec will simple have a  
> sd:datasetDescription property (and an equivalent property for  
> pointing to a dereferenceable URL for the same data) that will point  
> to some sort of description of the dataset (with the specifics being  
> left to others to sort out). Subsequently, a WG or IG note can be  
> published minting new properties if necessary (such as  
> ex:defaultGraph and ex:namedGraph) and detailing how a vocabulary  
> like voiD can be used to describe a SPARQL dataset.

That sounds like an excellent idea.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris
Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44(0)20 8973 2465  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10  
9AD

Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 08:34:45 UTC