W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: [ISSUE-30] Suggestions for HTTP protocol updates

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 11:57:20 +0100
Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-Id: <7F4AEEDB-67F0-4BFC-B48F-F422094E2FAE@garlik.com>
To: Kjetil Kjernsmo <Kjetil.Kjernsmo@computas.com>
On 4 Jun 2009, at 11:37, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:

> On Tuesday 02 June 2009 23:29:23 Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
>> +1 In addition this begs the question about 'compliance' levels.   
>> I.e., is
>> such a server considered a 'SPARQL protocol service'?
>
> I'd say so...
>
>>> So, the simplest protocol is one where the HTTP Request-URI is the  
>>> graph
>>> URI.
>>
>> Or perhaps a portion of the request URI is the graph URI?  Consider  
>> Dave
>> Beckett's triplr service, which takes GET requests against the  
>> following
>> URI:
>>
>> http://triplr.org/turtle/www.kanzaki.com/works/
>
> Hmmm, this breaks webarch, as far as I can see:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-opacity

Nothing in http://triplr.org/turtle/www.kanzaki.com/works/ expects the  
*client* to break apart the URI or try to determine meaning from  
fragments it didn't assemble itself, so it has no more impact on  
opacity than ?graph=.

>> I can imagine a perma-thread regarding how 'RESTful' such an  
>> approach is.
>
> Yeah, we should try to stay clear of those.

+ 1

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris
Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44(0)20 8973 2465  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10  
9AD
Received on Thursday, 4 June 2009 10:57:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:39 GMT