W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Closing ISSUE-5: Add a section explaining how LDBP is related to Graph Store Protocol

From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 07:31:10 -0800
To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Cc: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF8B3755FE.6A664EFA-ON88257AD1.005495D2-88257AD1.005540AD@us.ibm.com>
Hi David,
Did you see what we said about this on our WG page?

http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Main_Page#Linked_Data_Platform_.28LDP.29_vs_SPARQL_Graph_Store_HTTP_Protocol_.28GSP.29


I take it that the status quo doesn't satisfy you.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group


David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote on 12/11/2012 07:07:13 AM:

> From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
> To: Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS, 
> Cc: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
> Date: 12/11/2012 07:13 AM
> Subject: Re: Closing ISSUE-5: Add a section explaining how LDBP is 
> related to Graph  Store Protocol
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> The SPARQL 1.1 HTTP Graph Store Protocol [1] is in CR, but also its 
> status notes that it "may be superseded".  I'm not sure what that 
> means.  Its introduction says:
> [[
> This document describes the use of HTTP operations for the purpose 
> of managing a collection of RDF graphs. This interface is an 
> alternative to the SPARQL 1.1 Update protocol. Most of the 
> operations defined here can be performed using that interface, but 
> for some clients or servers, this interface may be easier to 
> implement or work with. This specification may serve as a non-
> normative suggestion for HTTP operations on RDF graphs which are 
> managed outside of a SPARQL 1.1 graph store.
> ]]
> …which certainly sounds like an overlap with LDP to me and thus 
> ISSUE-5 makes sense.  We should feel an obligation to align W3C 
> Recommendations.
> 
> I propose that the LDP WG formally ask Chimezie Ogbuji (the editor) 
> and the SPARQL WG to consider folding the requirements for the 
> SPARQL 1.1 HTTP Graph Store Protocol specification into the LDP 
> specification, and to withdraw the CR.  This would have the benefits
> of aligning the specification family, reducing duplication and 
> satisfying a greater number of use cases.
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> --
> http://about.me/david_wood

> 

> 
> On Dec 10, 2012, at 16:43, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> As I was looking closer to the list of open issues I realized that 
> this one [1] actually ought to be simply close as is. 
> 
> Unfortunately at the beginning I failed to make sure that our 
> minutes clearly reflected the resolutions we made and looking at our
> archives I can't quite reconstruct the exact history here. 
> 
> The issue change log reads: "decided at the telcon 9/24/2012: keep 
> it on record (OPEN) for now, before we decide what to do." even 
> though the minutes from that day [2] don't clearly support that. 
> 
> At the same time, the week before we decided to address the 
> relationship between LDP and GPS by adding a paragraph to the LDP WGpage 
[3].
> 
> So, I don't see why we would still want to keep this issue open. As 
> a consequence I'm putting this one up for review. 
> If anyone has any lights to shed on this or wants to object please 
> let me know. 
> Thanks. 
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/5 
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2012-09-24

> [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/

> 2012-09-17#sparql_graph_store_protocol__2c__overview_by_steve_speicher 
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 15:40:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 9 May 2013 13:44:26 UTC