Re: [ISSUE-32] Implications of updates on protocol, regarding HTTP methods

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Kendall Clark<kendall@clarkparsia.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Paul Gearon<gearon@ieee.org> wrote:
>>  Hopefully, the inclusion of the REST-style interface will go
>> some way to mollifying those people you're referring to.
>
> No, my point is that Option 2 will *not* be seen as REST-style by some people.

But that's the point. This is to allow for SPARQL/Update interface to
have an HTTP binding. This is *not* a REST interface - intentionally
so.

That said, we *also* want a REST interface, and it will need to
coexist without interference. Those people who want to look at
everything in REST should be able to ignore the Update-interface
binding, and vice versa. Of course, some people will object anyway,
but committee processes are about compromise.

Regards,
Paul