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: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 15:04:13 -0500
To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
CC: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CCECCF1E.CF5B%erik.wilde@emc.com>
hello all.

On 2012-12-11 7:07 , "David Wood" <david@3roundstones.com> wrote:
>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status notes that it "may be superseded".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.

that's a good question. pretty much anything "may be superseded" at some
point in time, right? the W3C publication habits have become a bit
quixotical recently, with specs leveling up without changing the name and
similar confusions.

>Šwhich certainly sounds like an overlap with LDP to me and thus ISSUE-5
>makes sense.  We should feel an obligation to align W3C Recommendations.

yes, we should. my recollection is that we very clearly said that LDP is
not about any kind of general-purpose RDF interactions, which is what GSP
is about. if you want to query a SPARQL database, you use GSP. if you want
to interact with collections made available as LDP resources, you use the
LDP protocol.

>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.

LDP is all about providing an RDF view into collections of things that can
be managed in any way, not just in a SPARQL store. in my understanding GSP
is all about providing an RDF view into any kind of RDF. to me, these are
very different things, but i do know that we have these recurring
discussions with people wanting to "tunnel SPARQL" into the LDP service.
we're actively trying to avoid this, because one goal we have is to allow
LDP to be implemented on any platform. we want to be friendly to
RDF-centric clients, while still allowing people to manage their LDP
service on top of an SQL or XML database back-end. it's hard to imagine
how we could "align" GSP and LDP without changing at least one of the two
pretty very substantially.

but this is just me speaking personally, not with my co-chair hat on.

cheers,

dret.
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 20:05:35 UTC

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