W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2009

Re: Today's equivalent of CBD+URIQA? (was: Re: Schism in the Semantic Web community.)

From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <Kjetil.Kjernsmo@computas.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:43:34 +0100
To: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200901271443.34435.Kjetil.Kjernsmo@computas.com>

On Tuesday 27 January 2009 13:16:49 Ivan Mikhailov wrote:
> The idea of CBD is not popular, too. But I've found that at least some
> people remember the acronym, and I've got even an enhancement request
> for configurable output of SPARQL DESCRIBE statement, to make it
> possible send a DESCRIBE ?x where {...} request with some special
> configuration preamble and get CBDs of all appropriate bindings of ?x.

/me raises hand. 

We have been using DESCRIBEs extensively in our applications, and we find it 
very useful.

I think it was a Good Thing that the first DAWG didn't overspecify DESCRIBE in 
SPARQL 1.0 before real use cases were known. Certainly, it would have been 
bad to specify CBD as the only valid way to return data from a DESCRIBE.

However, with current experience, we think that the DESCRIBE query form should 
be revisited, and we are of the opinion that even though one should be free 
to choose the output graph, we think that CBD would be an excellent candidate 
for a normatively defined default. We believe this would enhance 
interoperability at very little cost.

So, we plan to raise this issue within the DAWG II. :-)

Kind regards 

Kjetil Kjernsmo
Senior Knowledge Engineer
Mobile: +47 986 48 234
Email: kjetil.kjernsmo@computas.com   
Web: http://www.computas.com/


Computas AS  PO Box 482, N-1327 Lysaker | Phone:+47 6783 1000 | Fax:+47 6783 
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 13:44:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:10 UTC