- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:37:10 +0000
- To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- CC: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
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 comment. Andy
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2011 16:37:53 UTC