Re: Dataset HTTP Protocol and Service Descriptions

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