- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 18:33:43 +0000
- To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
On 28/02/11 21:08, Gregory Williams wrote: > Chime, all, > > As part of ACTION-396 I'm trying to sort out the current state of the > interaction between the RDF Dataset HTTP Protocol and Service > Descriptions. I think your most recent message on this is here: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011JanMar/0197.html > > You also linked to a message from last May in which you suggest some > overlap between the dataset protocol and the service description > vocabulary: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2010AprJun/0202.html > > It seem to me that the easiest path forward might be adding a > subclass of sd:Dataset that indicates that the dataset can be > accessed via the dataset protocol. So instead of this: > > [] a sd:Service ; sd:defaultDatasetDescription</dataset> . > </dataset> a sd:Dataset . > > you'd have: > > [] a sd:Service ; sd:defaultDatasetDescription</dataset> . > </dataset> a sd:RESTDataset . > > In your email you had suggested sd:RESTDatasetService, but "Service" > seems odd to me as that URI identifies the dataset, right? I'm not > tied to "RESTDataset", but want to make sure that whatever we end up > with makes sense. > > This addition seems like the path of least resistance to me, so I'd > like to hear your thoughts about it. Would it satisfy your needs for > being able to describe datasets made available via the dataset > protocol? > > thanks, .greg Something that might need describing is whether the service providing the RDF Dataset HTTP Protocol supports direct or indirect, or both, naming. Andy
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 18:34:21 UTC