W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > August 2011

Re: Comments on SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol Working Draft 14 October 2010

From: Chime Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 18:34:41 -0400
To: leigh.dodds@talis.com, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <3A9671E1D84740CF9686B7122FEB2CA0@gmail.com>
Forgot to add RDF DAWG WG comment list to recipient list.

On Saturday, August 20, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Chime Ogbuji wrote:
Leigh,
> Thanks for your comments.
> Below is an account of our response to your comments
> On 11, February 2011, Leigh Dodds wrote:
> > The Atom Protocol spec leads directly with the different types of resources being managed, and clear diagrams and illustrations of the HTTP protocol. The Uniform Protocol spec instead largely maps things to SPARQL Update operations.
> There have been some edits to address readability of the document (additional examples, re-wording in various places). Do you still have the same concerns regarding simplicity and documentation of a protocol model in light of these modifications? 
> 
> > From a user-developer perspective I'd prefer to see some clear examples of how the protocol is intended to operate, complete with HTTP operations, right from the outset.
> 
> The current last call working draft now includes extensive examples of HTTP messages for most of the operations
> > From an implementor-developer perspective, the mapping to SPARQL Update operations is a useful guide to how this protocol could be implemented as a layer over that language. But that's really just one approach, so perhaps should be moved to a non-normative section.
> 
> While implementers are indeed free to choose any implementation strategy they wish, the SPARQL Update examples are used to normatively define the required semantics of the protocol operations. I also feel that moving the mappings to Update operations into an appendix or a single other section would disrupt the flow of the text.
> 
> > [...] However my comment relates to management of Datasets, not graphs. I
> > think it would be useful to be able to:
> > * Add/Remove Datasets
> > * Add/Remove Graphs from Datasets
> > The specification already discusses the addition and removal of Graphs. Datasets added via a RESTful interface might then be available via a SPARQL endpoint that shares the same backing store. This seems me to map onto the model that's implicit in the Service Description documentation which indicates that a SPARQL endpoint might have several datasets, and that those datasets contain graphs. However at present the Uniform Protocol does not describe how to create datasets.
> 
> 
> After some discussion (see meeting notes [1]), the WG decided that we do not provide a life cycle for datasets and thus operations for adding and removing datasets would be a bit out of scope. In addition, the concurrent work in the RDF WG regarding representation of quads and named graphs would be a prerequisite for specifying the management of datasets over HTTP. Could you perhaps elaborate on a particular use case you have in mind for this behavior?
> 
> Chimezie
> on behalf of the SPARQL Working Group
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2011-03-15#More_operations_besides_POSTing_to_a_Graph_Store
> 
> -- 
> Chime Ogbuji
> Sent with Sparrow
> 
Received on Saturday, 20 August 2011 22:35:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 20 August 2011 22:35:13 GMT