Dan Brickley wrote: > This is where the delicate tradeoffs come into play, and where we > would all benefit if there were conventions for documenting the > information needs (eg. SPARQL templates) of consuming apps.
That's a nice idea. I wouldn't say SPARQL templates though, as that's somewhat limiting and not easily machine-processable. An RDF vocabulary for describing information needs and/or capabilities, with predicates like "can_understand_class" or "can_infer", would be sufficiently abstract and also link nicely into the existing descriptions of the vocabularies in question. (And SPARQL 1.1 adds URIs for entailment regimes I think?) Has anything like this been done already? -- Vasiliy Faronov
