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

Re: Discovering service descriptions

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:46:28 -0400
Message-ID: <1fc9c2ff0908110746w79f42a75ib14c35aedbf98904@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Gregory Williams<greg@evilfunhouse.com> wrote:
> On Aug 11, 2009, at 10:00 AM, Kendall Clark wrote:
>> 2. GET /service-uri for protocol, which is a variant of Lee's Option
>> 1, but w/out the link header. As I recall, GET /service-uri is
>> available and the STTCPW.
> I'm not sure I fully understand this. Is this the same as option 7 (conneg)?


> Without conneg, would this prevent providing a query form at the service
> uri?


I didn't realize people were doing that: *ick*;

The problem with the proposed use of conneg is that, as spec'd, conneg
is not a way to get a representation of a different resource (query
form versus svc desc), it's a way to get a diff representation of the
*same* resource... so an HTML form or an RDF form... Or an HTML
version of the svc desc or an RDF version. But using conneg to return
an HTML form or a svc desc is an abuse of conneg.

(I haven't read all the intervening conversation since Lee's proposal,
so someone probably makes this point about conneg already.)

I didn't tweak to people returning HTML query forms in response to a
GET on the service endpoing. Thus, my variant is stillborn or we just
tell people to stop doing that. :>


Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 14:47:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:57 UTC