search

w3c / rdf-star

RDF-star specification
https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/
Other
119 stars 23 forks source link

add a paragraph on SPARQL service description and sd:feature #164

Closed pchampin closed 2 years ago

pchampin commented 3 years ago

Assigned during today's call: https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/Minutes/2021-04-30.html#a01

TallTed commented 3 years ago

As noted in the minutes, I think these are more relevant than sd:feature, per se:

gatemezing commented 3 years ago

As noted in the minutes, I think these are more relevant than sd:feature, per se:

They are kind of all related according to their semantics in RDFS.

sd:Language rdfs:subClassOf sd:Feature .
sd:SPARQL10Query a sd:Language.
TallTed commented 3 years ago

Yes, they are related. My point is that the more specific predicates and collective objects are more suited to communicating the specific differences/qualities of an RDF-star/SPARQL-star server vs a "typical" RDF/SPARQL server than the very granular sd:feature. sd:feature should not be used with, for instance, sd:SPARQLstarQuery...

gatemezing commented 3 years ago

Would it be also worth it to also see the conformance in a dataset available on the Web in general, by using for e.g., dcat:Dataset ? The dctat vocabulary defines the notion of dcat:conformsTo and dcterms:Standard. This could help publishers describing their assets with that they dump dataset dcterms:conformsTo RDF-star.

TallTed commented 3 years ago

I have no objection to recommending dcterms:conformsTo be used as part of the description of any RDF-star (or RDF) serializations. It might be helpful to describe RDF 1.0 vs 1.1 datasets. That said, I doubt many publishers will add it to descriptions of existing (nor probably future) RDF serializations. It's slightly more likely in serializations where the format allows for inline comments, like Turtle or N3, unlike JSON-LD, CBOR-LD, etc.