W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > April 2010

Re: httpRange-14 as normative reference (and something on ISSUE-49)

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 09:42:31 -0400
Message-ID: <4BD2F547.4000707@thefigtrees.net>
To: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
CC: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On 4/23/2010 5:40 PM, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
> Hi all! Long time no see...
> I've been relaying some comments on ISSUE-49 through Greg lately, but it
> isn't that easy to explain what I mean, and how the current HTTP bindings
> will confuse developers. I currently work with a number of developers who
> are antagonistic towards RDF, and I think is extremely important that they
> can appreciate that protocol, it is something very familiar to them that we
> are doing.
> Anyway, to explain that stuff properly, my plan is to write the code, it
> becomes easier to explain with actual code to point to, but I have very
> little time nowadays, so that may take some time before I get to.
> Meanwhile, what I would hope you could discuss is whether the SPARQL WG
> should adopt httpRange-14 is a normative reference for the group's work.

Hi Kjetil,

Could you give me an idea of what impact this would have on the 
specification / implementations of the HTTP protocol? I'm not sure I 
understand the consequences. Is there a test case or the like that 
illustrates the effect of adopting httpRange-14 as a normative reference?


> My opinion is that this decision should be based on the importance this
> finding has for the greater Semantic Web community, and design SPARQL based
> on the constraints it sets. httpRange-14 is now well established as a best
> practice for the Linked Data movement, it resolves a long standing issue
> we've taken a lot of fire from the Topic Maps community over, and finally,
> it is what the TAG thinks we should be doing.
> If later, it is found to have no influence on the group's work, then fine,
> but I think it has and I hope it can be settled by a very quick straw poll.
> +1 on it being adopted as a normative reference from me :-)
> Cheers,
> Kjetil
Received on Saturday, 24 April 2010 13:43:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:10 UTC