- From: imikhailov <imikhailov@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 17:23:28 +0600
- To: "'Lee Feigenbaum'" <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>, <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Lee, > The last protocol work was in October when Kendall, Elias, and I identified three outstanding issues: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006OctDec/0082 > Of those issues, at the time we identified one of them (the third) as requiring WG discussion and a WG decision. Time permitting, let's try to discuss this matter in tomorrow's teleconference. > (In brief, the issue is: should SPARQL protocol endpoints support SPARQL queries posted as application/sparql-query?) I agree with 3.a Add application/sparql-query to whttp:inputSerialization for POST messages. Pros: Allows the natural case of directly POSTing a SPARQL query without URL or XML encoding it. Cons: Extra implementation cost for services implementing the SPARQL protocol. The reason is that natural POSTing is very convenient for debug purposes. So it's good for (potentially numerous) application developers and cheap for (small number of) SPARQL developers. Best Regards, IvAn.
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2007 11:23:48 UTC