CommentResponse:MH-1

From SPARQL Working Group
Jump to: navigation, search

(In response to MH-1)

> Not sure if this is already on your radar, but in order to ensure a wide
> uptake concerning end-point discovery, I propose to register a well-known
> URI as per RFC5785 [2], i.e. to add the following to the SPARQL 1.1 Service
> Description document:
> 
> ===
> 5. Well-Known URI Registration
>     
> URI suffix:  sparql
> 
> Change controller:  W3C.
> 
> Specification document(s):  This document.
> ===
> 
> This registry is quite new (as well as the RFC defining it) and I so far
> failed to figure what suffixes have been registered already. Nevertheless, I
> think it would tremendously help and hope that this is the right place to do
> it. If not, please let me know and I'll explore alternatives.


Michael,

The working group considered well-known URIs during discussion of service description discovery (see "Option 3" in [1] as a starting point). There was very little support for the idea[2], and we decided to proceed with the current discovery mechanism of using the service URL to return a service description. For the issue to be reconsidered, I think we would need to see an proposal for what metadata you think should be returned from the /.well-known/sparql URL, taking into consideration the potential presence of multiple endpoints within one http server and RFC5785's suggestion that such a resource only return metadata (potentially making it a poor choice for a service URL).

thanks,

Gregory Williams, on behalf of the SPARQL working group.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2009JulSep/0139.html [2] http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-08-11#service_description