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

Re: HTTP Update and HTTP verbs

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:46:43 -0400
To: "Steve Harris" <steve.harris@garlik.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C6F8C7A3.CFAC%ogbujic@ccf.org>
Comments inline below:

On 10/6/09 12:41 PM, "Steve Harris" <steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote:
> Which to me implies that the operation should be equivalent to
> 
> DROP SILENT GRAPH <uri>
> CREATE SILENT GRAPH <uri>
> INSERT DATA [ INTO <uri> ] { .. RDF payload .. }

I've made this change.

> Section 5.1 says that a POST is equivalent to:
> INSERT [ INTO <uri_of_knowledge> ] { .. RDF payload .. }
> This implies that a POST to a graph that has not already been PUT to
> will fail, which seems like it would be both surprising and
> inconvenient. As a user I would expect something more like:
> 
> CREATE SILENT GRAPH <uri>
> INSERT [ INTO <uri> ] { .. RDF payload .. }
> 
> Nothing that I can see in RFC 2616 implies that it should be an error
> to POST to a currently non-existent resource.

Understood.  I was just held up by the redundancy between the use of POST on
a non-existent Request-URI and the use of PUT in the same scenario (they
amount to the same operation).  However, if HTTP is ambiguous about this,
then the redundancy is the same as that of any other application that
supported both these verbs.  I have updated the language, example SPARQL
update language, and removed the note.
 
> Also, I find the term "URI of knowledge" a bit opaque. It's not a
> phrase that appears often enough on Google for e.g. to be in common
> usage, so I'd have though something like "graph URI" would be more
> easily understood? If that's what it means.

I was trying to be consistent in discussing the 'information resources
identified by URIs used in the HTTP operations that are represented by RDF
graphs in a dataset.'  This is a mouthful and the term 'Networked RDF
knowledge' was meant to be a shorthand for this.  In addition the subtle
(but confusing) fact that URIs of graphs in a dataset don't identify the
graphs themselves but what the graphs represents further confuses this
notion.

I don't claim it is the best phrase to use (and in fact I would appreciate
*any* suggestions), but I think distinguishing all information resources
from those that are represented by RDF graphs is important to tie down with
specific lexicon.  

In using the term 'knowledge' rather than information, I was appealing to
the fact that the ability of RDF to represent 'things' via a model theory is
more sophisticated than say that of an image representing 'things'

However, in the examples I have tried to use the term 'request-uri' rather
than 'uri of knowledge'.

-- 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
locations.


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 Monday, 12 October 2009 15:47:53 GMT

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