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

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

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 15:11:10 -0400
To: "Kjetil Kjernsmo" <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>, "Lee Feigenbaum" <lee@thefigtrees.net>
cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <C84FBD8E.12354%ogbujic@ccf.org>
Hello, Kjetil.  

After much consideration, the WG has decided to address this issue by
providing clarifying text in the next draft of the HTTP RDF Update
specification that 1) provides some context and a summary of the concerns
underlying this issue (whether or not graph URIs can identify information
resources, etc.), 2) includes a summary of httpRange-14 and its relation to
graph URIs and interactions with them over HTTP, and 3) includes an
informative reference to httpRange-14.

TAG findings cannot be normatively referenced in W3C REC track documents
(see minutes from the June 8th DAWG teleconference:
http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2010-06-08#http_rdf_update_TC ).

Please indicate if these clarifications will satisfy your concerns.  Note
that the current Working Draft includes updates to the terminology section,
which state that graph URIs identify information resources that are managed
by the server.  

-- Chime

On 4/23/10 4:17 PM, "Kjetil Kjernsmo" <kjetil@kjernsmo.net> 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.

> 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 :-)


===================================

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top hospitals
in America by U.S.News & World Report (2009).  
Visit us online at http://www.clevelandclinic.org for
a complete listing of our services, staff and
locations.


Confidentiality Note:  This message is intended for use
only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If
you have received this communication in error,  please
contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in
its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy.  Thank you.
Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2010 19:12:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 29 June 2010 19:12:13 GMT