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

Re: Kjeti;'s open comments

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 09:15:54 -0400
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Cc: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, sparQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1300799754.3138.352.camel@waldron>
On Tue, 2011-03-22 at 11:48 +0000, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 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.

+1

Or maybe we need d-snap (true mathematical dataset) and d-box (dataset
as a programming data structure, aka graph store).  :-)

(I'm not sure we get users to really accept that datasets are immutable,
so I'm not sure the migration to "graph store" for the mutable ones will
work.  I say +1 above because I'm sure we wont succeed with this
migration if we're inconsistent in our use of the terms.) 

    -- Sandro

> 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 13:16:05 GMT

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