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

Re: REST and HTTP Update

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 14:40:05 +0100
Message-Id: <F9BB9F56-8142-4AA1-A65D-6D10B0B214F5@garlik.com>
To: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 8 Oct 2009, at 14:29, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
> On 10/7/09 3:26 PM, "Steve Harris" <steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote:
>> However, among the other people using our store, I don't know of
>> anyone using the obvious REST approach. For whatever reason* people
>> seem to prefer the urlencode form. The half dozen or so 3rd party
>> libraries all seem to use the urlencode form.
>
> Just my take, but I would imagine that not having control over the  
> address
> space of a named graph is the most common reason.
>
> For example, we store patient records as RDF graphs (one graph per  
> patient
> record) and allocate non-resolvable tag: URIs as their names.  So,  
> already,
> this rules out the 'direct' approach for managing these graphs in the
> proposed protocol.

Well, you can connect to localhost port 80 and say
GET tag:foo@bar.com,2009-10-08:foo HTTP/1.1

I believe it's legal, but maybe not RESTful, now I think about it.  
It's not compatible with reverse proxies, because you have no way to  
indicate what HTTP port/address you want to send the request to.

If that's /not/ legal, or not RESTful, then 99.99...% of our updates  
require some way to specify the graph explicitly.

- 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, 8 October 2009 13:40:45 GMT

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