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

Re: Kjeti;'s open comments

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 11:48:50 +0000
Message-ID: <4D888CA2.2010809@epimorphics.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
CC: sparQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
Keeping to what we can address in documents is the right way to go.

Couple of comments:

1/ Maybe calling it the "SPARQL 1.1 RDF Graph Store Protocol" would, 
with hindsight, be better.

2/ "subset of the SPARQL protocol" - I found that misleading. I know 
what you mean - it's a subset of the capabilities - but the way it's 
invoked is completely different (it's not a POST of a form or a POST of 
a SPARQL Update script) as you go on to say.  Maybe say that it's 
documenting (not specifying) how a RESTful style is applied, and that 
the only definition is POST=>append triples and indirect naming.

	Andy


On 22/03/11 11:13, Axel Polleres wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>   I started to draft a response to Kjetil's open comments.
> My general rationale here is that - despite the ongoing discussions on other lists - I think that
> the rationale of the SPARQL 1.1 RDF Dataset HTTP Protocol document is merely to provide a RESTful
> version of a subset of the SPARQL protocol, i.e. to provide some more direct acceess to a
> SPARQL endpoints directly via HTTP operations.
>
> Anything beyond that is IMO beyond our WG's charter (that's particular on Kjetil's last comment, but I tried to address all his open comments now...)
>
> Along these lines, I drafted the following response:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:KK-12
>
> this still has two open TODO's which I'd kindly ask Chime to have a look.
>
> best,
> Axel
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2011 11:49:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:45 GMT