W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hydra@w3.org > July 2014

Re: Comments on the Triple Patterns Fragments draft

From: Olaf Hartig <ohartig@uwaterloo.ca>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 10:51:07 -0400
To: <public-hydra@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8844890.BZ6WBa2LM2@porty2>

On Monday 21 July 2014 15:15:32 Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> [...]
> > 4) As I was implementing LDF, I found that if I have a { ?s ?p ?o . }
> > pattern, i.e. all variables, I would much rather point the user at a data
> > dump.
> You're free to do that.
> But why make this a special case?
> Actually, that fragment *is* simply the data dump.
> > My plan was to just throw a 400 in the first release, but subsequently put
> > in a Location header that points to the data dump. A redirect might be
> > more appropriate.
> Exactly my thoughts; just a redirect would be nice.
> But then again, is this case so bad?
> Mostly, ?s ?p ?o will be asked for the metadata (or for the controls!);
> just providing the first 100 triples and no paging could also be fine.
> (Clients simply won't be able to solve * queries then.)

I would strongly advise against doing the latter. My understanding of the 
"contract" provided with TPFs is that they enable a client to get _all_ 
triples from the dataset that match the given triple pattern (either by 
iterating over the pages or by obtaining a single document if paging is not 
supported by the server). This contract is essential to provide guarantees 
w.r.t. soundness and completeness of query results.

Received on Monday, 21 July 2014 14:51:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:42 UTC