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

Re: SPARQL GSP vs BP

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 08:44:26 +0100
Message-ID: <4FF6975A.6060206@epimorphics.com>
To: public-ldp-wg@w3.org


On 05/07/12 15:56, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> Looking at how the SPARQL Graph Store Protocol (GPS) and Basic Profile
> (BP) submission compare, the most obvious difference I see is the fact
> GPS primarily deals with "graphs" while BP deals with Basic Profile
> Resources and Containers.
>
> So, I'd like to ask whether considering a BPR as a graph would, at least
> to some extend, provide some alignment between the two specs. I think
> two aspects need to be considered: 1) what URL is used, 2) what triples
> are returned.
>
> Thoughts?
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group

I see GSP and BPR, when looked at as application protocols as siblings, 
sharing the common idea of using the full range of HTTP verbs; they have 
slightly different data models but both deal in graphs.

GSP does not interpret the contents of messages, in or out
BPR puts meaning on contents and reserves vocabulary.

BPR has containers, and containers of containers.
GSP just has graph stores and graphs and you can only create new graphs.

BPR resources and containers emphasis that RDF graph which forms the 
body of the messages has certain forms including metadata about the 
resource and about the record about the resource.  GSP has no 
restrictions and as a consequence no information can be relied on to be 
present.


I question I have is whether a BPR can be some binary blob (i.e. not 
RDF), and the RDF is the meta data record about that blob.  This needs 
the resource and the record about the resource being different IRIs or 
using the indirect naming of GSP.

	Andy
Received on Friday, 6 July 2012 07:44:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 9 May 2013 13:44:22 UTC