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

Re: protocol: updated (radically changed) draft

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:23:49 -0500
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Cc: kendall@monkeyfist.com, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20041122162349.GD4817@monkeyfist.com>

On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 04:14:06PM +0000, Seaborne, Andy wrote:

> >Because having something like the abstract protocol makes sense if
> >someone's going to do anything other than HTTP.
> Fine - but that is not the same to me as a "must have" abstract protocol 
> (i.e. rec track, normative).  A "being informed by" document (a note?) 
> could be fine.

I don't yet have any reason to drop it from either draft. Just FYI.

> There is more deployment experience with query than with update.  We have 
> not undertaken a use case/requirements analysis for update so the balance 
> is "remote (read) access" now or a long wait for something grander.  I'd 
> prefer to split up the part that is better understood - as you will have 
> gathered by now :-)

Yes, and I agree re: deployment experience; but this is all orthogonal
to non-HTTP protocols and the virtues of an abstract section. Or so it
really seems to me.

> >You've insisted that we drop getTriples, repeatedly. I don't,
> >therefore, see the point of debating its details...Am I missing something?
> Yes! - two things
> 1/ My comment is directed at the use of "g=" being different in different 
> cases regardless of the agruement for or against getTriples.  I was noting 
> that uses are different.


> 2/ I am not insisting on dropping getTriples.  I'm proposing that it is 
> handled for HTTP by "lang=getTriples" in the case of directing a request to 
> a service processor and the fact that "GET /graph" is a plain HTTP.

I don't understand this *at all*. Maybe a phone call or something
would help. Maybe I'm just in a Fat American pre-Thanksgiving Brain
Haze... :>

> >I don't agree; and I had different guidance from our chair.
> I had to read it to see where it was the same and where, if anywhere, it 
> was different or specialized.  Give me (the reader) a clue that I can skip 
> it.


> I have lots of details comments as well :-)

Oh, my heart thrills at the prospects! :>

Received on Monday, 22 November 2004 16:24:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:45 UTC