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

service description discovery

From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:31:28 -0400
Message-Id: <0282EEC7-0787-4643-977E-FF337AD09EBF@evilfunhouse.com>
To: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I'm trying to sort out where we left the discussion on service  
description discovery. As best I can tell, there are (roughly) four  
remaining options that we've discussed:

option 1: link header that points to a URI where the service  
description can be downloaded (2,9,0)
option 2 - use the HTTP OPTION verb on the endpoint URI (8,4,1)
option 7 - standard query, using content negotiation to get the  
service description (4,1,4)
option 8 - new protocol operation (no strawpoll results yet)

The numbers in parentheses represent the strawpoll votes for (-1, 0,  
+1), respectively.

I don't believe we ever got a vote on option 8. Between the other 3,  
option 7 had the most +1 votes, as well as the highest +1:-1 ratio.  
Having said that, I think we also left off on the August 18th telecon  
without discussing the option 7' variant with RDFa.

So, I guess I'd like to hear what people think of option 8 and the  
RDFa variant(s) of option 7. Steve has previously discussed an  
implementation problem when using option 8 and reverse proxies, and  
there was some worry about the lack of widespread support for RDFa.  
Anything else?

Received on Friday, 11 September 2009 02:32:07 UTC

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