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

Re: update= vs query=

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:00:37 -0400
To: "Lee Feigenbaum" <lee@thefigtrees.net>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C6DFE895.C9BF%ogbujic@ccf.org>
On 9/23/09 2:09 PM, "Lee Feigenbaum" <lee@thefigtrees.net> wrote:
> Chimezie, I think I understand what you're saying, but wanted to ask you
> whether defining update in the /Protocol document as its own interface
> (so it can be found to its own URI endpoint) but _also_ defining the
> update operation to have an update= (rather then query=) parameter would
> satisfy your HTTP sensibilities.

Yes, I don't see any issues there

> This would (I think) mean that admins who wanted to could deploy on
> separate URIs and maintain the "URI drives operation" setup that your'e
> advocating, while other admins could have a single endpoint which
> dispatches to a SPARQL/Query or SPARQL/Update processor based on whether
> query= or update= is sent up.
> What do you think?

Yes, that would give admins the flexibility to associate HTTP-bound
operations with a resource of their choice.

> PS I'm pretty sure the query string gets sent in the GET request as part
> of the URI being requested.
> GET /service?foo=bar HTTP/1.1
> Host: ...
> The only thing that doesn't get sent is the fragment identifier.

Okay, thanks for the correction

-- Chimezie


P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top hospitals
in America by U.S. News & World Report (2008).  
Visit us online at http://www.clevelandclinic.org for
a complete listing of our services, staff and

Confidentiality Note:  This message is intended for use
only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If
you have received this communication in error,  please
contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in
its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy.  Thank you.
Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 19:02:01 UTC

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