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

Re: Response to your comments on the SPARQL 1.1 Graph Store HTTP Protocol document (formerly "SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs")

From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjekje@ifi.uio.no>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:03:19 +0200
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, SPARQL Comments <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
Message-Id: <201103311403.19532.kjekje@ifi.uio.no>
On Monday 28. March 2011 23:47:52 you wrote:
> We now write in the current editor's draft:
> 
> "If this header is not provided, the server SHOULD attempt to parse the RDF
> payload as RDF/XML. Similarly, if the Accept header is not provided, the
> server SHOULD return an RDF XML document."

OK, good, that clarifies it.

> 
> "If there is no such RDF graph content in the Graph Store, the server MUST
> respond with a 404 Not Found response code."

OK. I think this requirement is likely to be widely and deliberately ignored 
by implementors, but I respect the WGs decision.

> "A response code of 200 OK or 204 No Content SHOULD be given in the
> response if the operation succeeded or 202 (Accepted) if the action has
> not yet been enacted."

OK, good.

> 
>         
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Oct/0061.
> html We don't think any new issues are inherited in the use of HTTP that
> were not there already (so normal web security precautions apply).

OK. Although you are right in that no new issues arise, I figured it would be a 
good idea to do in the interest of non-duplication of effort and given the 
prevalence of these attacks in the SQL world:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/28/mysql_hack/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/anonymous-speaks-the-inside-
story-of-the-hbgary-hack.ars
But I also appreciate the hard work you do to finish, so I understand perfectly 
well if you don't want to give it high priority.

> In case the SPARQL 1.1 Graph Store HTTP Protocol is used for such
> repositories, we think that (in the spirit of what was said in the
> beginning of this mail) they can be viewed as graph stores.

OK! Lets hope it will not confuse newcomers too much.
 
> We'd appreciate if you could indicate whether this response adequately
> addresses your comment.

It does. I'm not quite happy, but that's life. :-)

Kjetil
-- 
Kjetil Kjernsmo
Ph.d. Student, Semantic Web
kjekje@ifi.uio.no
http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2011 12:03:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 31 March 2011 12:03:51 GMT