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

RE: REST and HTTP Update

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 13:31:54 +0000
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA3693EDB32F1@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>
I can live with either design (?graph= or /service/).

One minor advantage of the ?graph= form is that it fits the ?query= style but that isn't enough to make that the best design for me.

	Andy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Steve Harris
> Sent: 06 October 2009 17:18
> To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group
> Subject: REST and HTTP Update
> 
> I've had a quick look at the HTTP Update document, though nothing that
> would count as a review.
> 
> I share Kjetil's concerns about the REST thing, but on the other hand
> I think it's a very important aspect of the protocol.
> 
> An alternative, which I believe to be RESTful is to target requests to
> 
>    $endpoint + uriencode($graph)
> 
> This is compatible with PUT and POST semantics, and I believe that it
> conforms to REST ideals, though that may be arguable.
> 
> Example:
> 
> http://localhost:8080/data/http%3A%2F%2Fexample.com%2Fdata.rdf

> 
> - Steve

Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 13:32:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:40 GMT