Re: brief review for service description document

On Jan 4, 2010, at 7:30 PM, Axel Polleres wrote:

> I am fine with publication of this document in its current form.
> Here some more general comment not intended for resolution for this WD but in the future:
> * Instances:
>  sd:SPARQLQuery
>  sd:SPARQLUpdate 
> indicate the supported language, but no version. How shall I advertise that only query1.0 is supported?
> (question is also  whether we want that but it might make sense to advertise only a fragment of the language)

I can add an instance IRI for Query 1.0 for the next draft.

I think ericP (?) had talked about advertising fragments at one point. I'm happy for this to be an acceptable use of the relevant terms in the SD vocabulary, but I'm not sure it requires any work on our part (other people are free to define any subset they want).

> * As for Alex' comment:
>> BTW, as a matter of personal taste, instead having these as sentences, esp. for long ones as 
>> for "sd:defaultEntailmentRegime is an rdfs:subPropertyOf sd:feature. The rdfs:domain of 
>> sd:defaultEntailmentRegime is sd:Service. The rdfs:range of sd:defaultEntailmentRegime is 
>> sd:EntailmentRegime.", it might be better to have RDF code for each of these descriptions.
> Hmm, shouldn't we rather strive to publish an RDF Schema document alongside with the document (in 
> the next draft)?

As discussed today, the RDF schema will be published alongside this coming draft. As for styling in the document, unless there's a reason not to, I'd prefer to follow precedent (e.g. in the RDFS document) and keep the domain/range/subPropertyOf stuff in prose.


Received on Wednesday, 6 January 2010 03:38:43 UTC