W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: Dataset HTTP Protocol and Service Descriptions

From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 17:43:25 -0500
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <BE141038-464F-44CA-A532-EC9AE66E3B83@evilfunhouse.com>
To: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
On Mar 1, 2011, at 9:14 PM, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:

> So, the origin of the thread (as I remember it) was determining how,
> given a dataset protocol service URL, a client can discover the
> GraphStore / dataset URL.  Then the discussion transitioned into
> whether or not there needed to be a new class of "services"
> representing the dataset protocol service in the SD document.
> However, your point above makes sense.  So, if we allow an SD document
> to be served from the dataset protocol URL (as described in the
> dataset protocol specification) and the GraphStore URL is typed
> accordingly, then I think we would have addressed both issues.

I'm wary of "allowing an SD document to be served from the dataset protocol URL," if "allowing" means anything other than not specifying behavior. I realize this is in the dataset protocol document right now, but we never discussed this in any detail and I'm hesitant to specify this in the service description document because I worry it'll drag a ton of problems with it. Adding a sd:RESTService is an easy way for an existing Protocol implementation to indicate offhandedly that the default dataset is available through the dataset protocol, but trying to make the SD document also work for specifying details of a dataset protocol implementation seems to me to be beyond the scope of the SD document.

Received on Thursday, 3 March 2011 22:43:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:03 UTC