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

Re: update= vs query=

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:50:25 +0100
Message-Id: <5AA9BBB9-76B0-4945-9A06-217DB1A50C3E@garlik.com>
To: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 23 Sep 2009, at 19:09, Lee Feigenbaum 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.
>
> 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.

That's certainly my preferred solution.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris
Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44(0)20 8973 2465  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10  
9AD
Received on Thursday, 24 September 2009 10:03:55 GMT

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