W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: protocol draft available

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:55:11 +0000
Message-ID: <41937D4F.1050308@hp.com>
To: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
CC: DAWG public list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>



Steve Harris wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 09:17:26AM -0500, Kendall Clark wrote:
> 
>>Les Chiens,
>>
>>I'm relieved (!) to say that I've finally got a protocol draft that
>>I'm willing to publicly share, in the event anyone's still
>>interested. You can find it at
>>
>>	    http://monkeyfist.com/kendall/sparql-protocol/
> 
> 
> Commenting on protocol-wd.html,v 1.1 2004/11/09.
> 
> Havent fully digested it, but I'm still very interested :) some inital
> observations:
> 
> getOptions is not REQUIRED, from my experiences with Z39.50 I would say
> this is a mistake.

Steve - if it were just for query operations, what sort of information would go 
in the "options" returns?  Does Z39.50 experience suggest it is details of the 
operations available or details about the data graph?

	Andy

> 
> Query example 1.1 seems to be a select that returns a section of an RDF
> graph (rather than a graph that describes a result set), I haven't URL
> decoded the string, but I dont see how that works.
> 
> Why do the HTTP binding arguments have []'s round them? I dont have a
> particular problem, with it, but it seems unneccesary, and a bit of a
> break from the norm.
> 
> - Steve
> 
Received on Thursday, 11 November 2004 14:55:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:21 GMT