This was raised by Tim Lebo via email. Quoting Tim:
=============
I was having another read of http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/NOTE-void-20110303/
which says:
[[
:DBpedia a void:Dataset;
void:sparqlEndpoint <http://dbpedia.org/sparql>;
.
Note: In some SPARQL endpoints, named graphs are used to partition the data.
Currently VoID doesn't provide a dedicated way of stating that a dataset is
contained in a specific named graph. This kind of information can be provided
in a SPARQL Service Description, as described below.
]]
and then defers to http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/NOTE-void-20110303/#sparql-sd
which doesn't mention the ":DBPedia" from the more simple description above.
While I agree with the alignment that you describe between VoID and SD, I find
that a "pure SD" description loses the "dataset focus" since one needs to dig
"backwards" through a bit of subgraph structuring to find out where, exactly,
the dataset resides.
Perhaps the following description would be a more direct way to state, as you
say, "a dataset is contained in a specific named graph.":
:DBPedia
a void:Dataset;
dcterms:title "DBpedia";
foaf:homepage <http://dbpedia.org/>;
void:triples 1000000000;
dcat:distribution [
a sd:NamedGraph;
sd:name <http://dbpedia.org/> ;
prov:atLocation <http://example.org/geopedia/sparql>; # Where, the understanding is that there is some [ a sd:Service; sd:endpoint <http://example.org/geopedia/sparql> ]
];
.
I was wondering if any of you find objection to this modeling, since I've come
to like its directness.
Also, since I'm introducing dcat, perhaps void:dataDump should be deprecated in
favor of dcat:distribution [ dcat:downloadURL ] (which, I guess goes against
the desire for directness…)
================
Original issue reported on code.google.com by richard....@gmail.com on 28 Nov 2013 at 2:38
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
richard....@gmail.com
on 28 Nov 2013 at 2:38