Hi Nandana, all, > I wonder if it is possible to have a hybrid approach in which the > dereferenceable Linked Data resources that optionally advertise query > endpoint(s) in a standard way so that the clients can perform queries on > related data.
For me, the answer is always self-descriptiveness. I thus agree with Hugh's premise: it should be in the document. If you want to tell a client it can do a certain thing, just tell the client it can do a certain thing. For instance, if we want to say "you can find data about http://dbpedia.org/resource/Nikola_Tesla in the collection http://fragments.dbpedia.org/2015/en, which you can query as Triple Pattern Fragments", we should just convert this sentence to RDF and add it to representations of http://dbpedia.org/resource/Nikola_Tesla: <http://fragments.dbpedia.org/2015/en#dataset> hydra:member <http://dbpedia.org/page/Nikola_Tesla>; hydra:search [ hydra:mapping [ hydra:variable "subject"; hydra:property rdf:subject ], hydra:mapping [ hydra:variable "predicate"; hydra:property rdf:predicate ], hydra:mapping [ hydra:variable "object"; hydra:property rdf:object ], ]. In that case, the only thing we need to standardize on is the hypermedia vocabulary. I believe in such in-band, RDF-based "being explicit to clients" approaches much more than specific conventions standardized in human-readable specification document. If you think about it, being explicit is also how we do it on the human Web. How would you tell a human it can query your website in a certain way? Well, you would just say that—and provide the controls to do so :-) Best, Ruben
