Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Improve optional sparql assertion #89

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 9, 2020

Conversation

farshidtz
Copy link
Member

@farshidtz farshidtz commented Oct 22, 2020

Minor follow-up change requested in feedback #77 (comment)


Preview | Diff

Copy link
Member

@relu91 relu91 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good, even if I am still concerned about the fact that the SPARQL protocol returns its specific data model, not Thing Description neither a Partial TD. However, let's go on and discuss it in a dedicated issue.

@mmccool mmccool merged commit bba5351 into w3c:master Nov 9, 2020
Copy link
Contributor

@mmccool mmccool left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ok, reviewed in meeting

@farshidtz
Copy link
Member Author

@mmccool this is the existing assertion block:

wot-discovery/index.html

Lines 917 to 919 in bba5351

<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="tdd-search-apis-jsonPath">
The Directory MAY implement semantic search with SPARQL.
</span>

which comes before:

wot-discovery/index.html

Lines 959 to 961 in bba5351

<h4>Semantic search: SPARQL</h4>
The support for SPARQL Search API is optional.
<span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="tdd-search-semantic-protocol">If implemented, the SPARQL search API MUST allow searching TDs using the SPARQL protocol [[sparql11-overview]].</span>

@farshidtz farshidtz deleted the sparql-assertion-fix branch March 7, 2022 16:13
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants