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

RE: Some comments on F&R (2)

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:52:51 +0000
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
CC: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA3646C65D696@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Harris [mailto:steve.harris@garlik.com]
> Sent: 11 June 2009 09:14
> To: Seaborne, Andy
> Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Some comments on F&R (2)
> 
> On 10 Jun 2009, at 10:46, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> 
> I broadly agree with Andy, but for
> 
> > Structure:
> > Currently it is:
> > ----
> > #  4 SPARQL/Update 1.0
> >
> >    * 4.1 Update
> >
> > # 5 Protocol Enhancements
> >
> >    * 5.1 HTTP graph update
> 
> I think it's correct as it is. SPARQL/Update is part of a language,
> and the protocol is something else.

If it's because you want SPARQL/Update as the name for the language (not a bad idea) how about:

4 Update

    * 4.1 SPARQL/Update Language
        ...
    * 4.2 Protocol Enhancements for Update
        ...       

To reflect the resolutions:

"SPARQL WG will pursue a full-featured, multi-graph update language" [R2]
"SPARQL WG will pursue RESTful operations for updating RDF stores" [R3]


[R2] http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-06-02#resolution_2

[R3] http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-06-02#resolution_3

Good bot.


> 
> - 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, 11 June 2009 08:54:36 GMT

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