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

ACTION-115: Note on proxy graph URI

From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:35:48 +0200
To: SPARQL WG <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-id: <200910111435.49778.kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
All,

I think we can do with some relatively minor modifications to go to FPWD, 
allthough it seems awkward to mark this as "at risk", when WG members think 
this is the most useful part of the spec. Also, I strongly feel that the 
term "networked RDF knowledge", needs to be replaced to avoid derailing the 
discussion, but see my other email about whether an RDF graph should be 
considered an information resource.

I think this could do:

Editorial Note: Issue with need for a specified query component

The working group has also considered the need to use query components 
(e.g. the <code>graph</code> keyword in the above example) to specify the 
URI of the graph to manage. This would be different from using the Request 
URI of inbound messages to directly identify the networked RDF knowledge. 
This feature is considered <strong>at risk</strong>, since it is unclear to 
the WG whether this can or should be done according to REST principles, and 
if not, should the feature be dropped? Other open questions include: If an 
HTTP GET request is dispatched to such a URI, is the assumption that the 
Request URI refers to a data-producing process rather than some networked 
RDF knowledge represented by an RDF graph? Or is the 'proxy' URI considered 
just another identifier for the same networked RDF knowledge?


Cheers,

Kjetil
-- 
Kjetil Kjernsmo
kjetil@kjernsmo.net
http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/
Received on Sunday, 11 October 2009 12:36:25 GMT

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