- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 11:31:47 -0500
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Feb 15, 2011, at 3:17 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > Will there be range of sd:ServiceEndpoint as well as a domain? I have no strong feelings about this. Do you think it's important? >> • The RDF content returned from dereferencing a service URL<U> must >> include one triple matching: ?service sd:url<U> . > > I don't think that is necessary. It is desirable for simple processing of the RDF but MUST is far too strong. After all the service may have different names (over time, your name, my name, bnode now, name later) - this is the semantic web and there is not usually a unique name assumption. Understood. Would you be happy with a "SHOULD"? I'm OK with "bnode now, name later." What I'm worried about is "bnode now, name also now" -- I don't want to make it more difficult for clients trying to use service descriptions by requiring support for IFPs (or complex queries trying to work around the lack of support for IFPs). thanks, .greg
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2011 16:32:19 UTC