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

Re: service description discovery

From: Alexandre Passant <Alexandre.Passant@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 07:23:10 +0100
Cc: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E3B100A7-DEE3-4CE1-BF4E-65A3752DE9BA@deri.org>
To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>

On 14 Sep 2009, at 18:46, Gregory Williams wrote:

> On Sep 14, 2009, at 5:21 AM, Alexandre Passant wrote:
>
>> On 11 Sep 2009, at 03:31, Gregory Williams wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> You mean option 2 ?
>
> I didn't think so, but I suppose I could be wrong. I believe the  
> preferences I tried to summarize were correct, but I also believe I  
> got some of the vote counts wrong. This is all based on the chatlog  
> at [1]. At this point, I believe the proper counts are:

My mistake, I read (+1, 0, -1) :-/

Alex.

>
> option 1: link header that points to a URI where the service  
> description can be downloaded
> 	-1: 2 votes
> 	0: 9 votes
> 	+1: 0 votes
>
> option 2 - use the HTTP OPTION verb on the endpoint URI
> 	-1: 8 votes
> 	0: 3 votes
> 	+1: 1 vote
>
> option 7 - standard query, using content negotiation to get the  
> service description
> 	-1: 5 votes
> 	0: 1 vote
> 	+1: 4 votes
>
> option 8 - new protocol operation (no strawpoll results yet)
> 	no votes yet
>
> If you think I've misunderstood the strawpoll results, please to  
> correct me.
>
>> It seems to me that the issues raised by Steve with option 8 happen  
>> is really particular cases - any idea on how often that reverse  
>> proxy setting happens ?
>>
>> In addition, all others from the list (besides option 2 ?) also got  
>> issues:
>>
>> option 1: link header implies that there is an HTML page at the  
>> endpoint URL which is not always the case
>> option 2: don't see any particular issue here, but I'm wondering  
>> how easy is that, from a usual Web browser, to send that HTTP  
>> OPTION verb
>
>
> As mentioned by others, there's the caching issue to be concerned  
> with. Also, and I realize this doesn't apply to everyone (depending  
> on implementation and use cases), I would very much like to see a  
> solution where I could use the service description URI in a FROM  
> clause with an implementation that dereferences FROM URIs. This  
> would allow querying of the service description with either the  
> endpoint in question or with any other endpoint so long as the FROM  
> URI could be dereferenced. This isn't possible with option 2 but is  
> possible with options 1, 7, and 8 (possibly involving an extra  
> request to determine what the SD URI is).
>
> thanks,
> .greg
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/meeting/2009-08-18
>

--
Dr. Alexandre Passant
Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Galway
:me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .
Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 06:23:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:08:28 GMT