- From: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 12:03:28 -0500
- To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Gregg, On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com> wrote: > Have we discussed this before? Yes, see my My May 18th 2010 email (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0202.html) in response to you regarding this. Eventually, an editor's note was added in the last publication cycle in order to solicit feedback from the community as well as the WG. > Until this thread I didn't realize anyone was expecting the service description to have any relationship with the dataset protocol. I'm a > bit uncomfortable with only having a "follow your nose" pattern of discovery for a graph store URI in the service description. I worry > that it will lead to a situation where software tries to dereference any URI used in a SD dataset description, even for the (many?) > services that don't implement the dataset protocol. Not *any* URI, just the URI of an instance of sd:Dataset. This might be a little off topic, but I generally think of two categories of "follow your nose" (or 'linked data') traversal through a network of RDF: a) one where the client doesn't have any guidance about which URI should be followed and there is a general assumption that most RDF URIs are dereferencable and b) one where the vocabulary indicates which URIs are dereferenceable (such as terms like owl:imports, rdfs:seeAlso, etc.). I share the same concerns you have about the first category, but this mechanism uses the second one. > I'm not entirely opposed to aligning the SD document with the dataset protocol, but I've never developed it with that connection in > mind and had always assumed that at this stage it was only meant to work with the (non-dataset) protocol. So, in the currently published dataset protocol document, the editor's note in that section says: [[[ The Service Description document provides an RDF vocabulary term (sd:Dataset) that can be used in statements about a SPARQL Dataset, however, it is not clear what URI the client can use to request such a service description that provides the URI of the Network-manipulable Graph Store (typed as an instance of sd:Dataset). ]]] s/Network-manipulable/ Is this an improper use of the sd:Dataset term? Currently, the section in the Service Description editor's draft about this term says: "An instance of sd:Dataset represents a RDF Dataset comprised of a default graph and zero or more named graphs." -- Chime
Received on Sunday, 6 February 2011 17:04:25 UTC