- From: Carlos Buil Aranda <cbuil@fi.upm.es>
- Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 10:03:28 +0100
- To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Hi Greg, I agree with your answer to the RS-1 email. In particular, regarding the alignment between the terminology of the service description and federation documents, I will rename from service name to a more suitable naming convention in the Fed document. Carlos On 01/04/2011 18:38, Gregory Williams wrote: > I've started to draft a response to Robert Scanlon on his comments about the service description document: > > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:RS-1 > > I think most of his concerns are based on a misunderstanding between the service (possibly an IRI) and the service URL (the place you access the service as defined by the sparql protocol). > > The one issue the comment raises that needs addressing is the terminology difference between the SD and Fed documents. The SD document refers to a "service URL" while the fed document (in discussing what goes inside the<> of a SERVICE pattern) refers to a "service name". I notice that the current Protocol draft defines a "SPARQL endpoint" as "The URI at which a SPARQL Protocol service listens for requests from SPARQL Protocol clients." Maybe the SD (and fed) document should s/service URL/service URI/? > > Thoughts? > > thanks, > .greg > > >
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2011 09:03:49 UTC