On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Hugh Glaser <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...] > > So having a separation between SPARQL Service Description and voiD would > just be plain wrong. > They must embrace each other, so that consumers can easily work out how to > use what they think of as a "dataset". > > I would also add that if I take a REST-like view of the world, which I do > for accessing a SPARQL endpoint (I am simply retrieving a document), the > distinction between dataset and service becomes very blurred. > Even calling it a "SPARQL Service Description" seems rather old-fashioned > to me. > Hugh, I tend to agree (certainly about calling them 'service descriptions', ugh). From a REST point of view, void:Datasets, named graphs (capable of RESTful interaction via Graph Store Protocol) and SPARQL query/update 'endpoints' (ugh again) are all resources that allow one to find other, more specific, resources. That said if we accept that one needs some up-front guidance on what those resources allow you to get to (a big 'if', if the REST community, but I don't think anyone in ours would be happy with just a media type) then we want them to be self-describing in RDF. At the same time, the relationships we want to attach to the query/update endpoints are semi-distinct, no? You'd agree these are different classes of resource? Barry
