Re: Service or graph store naming.

On 15/02/11 16:31, Gregory Williams wrote:
> 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).

SHOULD is acceptable - personally, I'd make it more of a style-of-RDF 


Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2011 16:37:53 UTC