RE: service description vocabulary



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Steve Harris
> Sent: 29 September 2009 09:34
> To: Gregory Williams
> Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group
> Subject: 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.

Yes - good idea.

 Andy

> 
> - 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 13:17:48 UTC