On Wednesday 10 June 2009 11:46:09 Seaborne, Andy wrote: > I prefer putting protocol under update to be clear it is in support of > update. "Enhancement" suggests tweaks to the query protocol to me but we > wish to leave the design space open and avoid prejudging naming issues. > Also, the new protocol is there to support update so make that explicit. I'll just quickly respond to this as it is the only point where I disagree, and let others chime in to discuss the rest: I'm not thinking about the protocol just in terms of update, I'm thinking about it as a successor to http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-protocol/ Thus, HTTP graph update is just a part of it, there may be Service Description issues going into the SPARQL Protocol. Perhaps not much more, though. Nevertheless I feel that's reason enough to keep them separate. Kind regards Kjetil Kjernsmo -- Senior Knowledge Engineer / SPARQL F&R Editor Mobile: +47 986 48 234 Email: kjetil.kjernsmo@computas.com Web: http://www.computas.com/ | SHARE YOUR KNOWLEDGE | Computas AS PO Box 482, N-1327 Lysaker | Phone:+47 6783 1000 | Fax:+47 6783 1001Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2009 10:29:30 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 1 October 2009 14:42:12 GMT