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

Summary of (substantive) change requests from post-LC comments

From: Chime Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:15:36 -0400
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <90898CD6E5F04698BB40EA628C21C032@gmail.com>
I have an action (I couldn't find the number) to bring discussion about the post-LC comments I received for the graph store protocol document to the mailing list.

The draft comment responses (which have links to the original comments) are [1] and [2] and the substantive changes requested are below

== IM-1 ==

There was a request to modify the protocol so that PUT with multipart form is permitted for current "PUT" and "POST" functionality. This seems like a reasonable request, (since it is an additive change) I don't think it would be a disruptive change, and I can see how this is a very likely use case / scenario.

There was a question about what should be returned in scenarios where the Content-Type is not provided and the server has a routine that guesses the type by the content of the resource and the routine reports that the resource is Turtle and not RDF/XML. My inclination is to add language allowing implementations to 'sniff' out the content type if they have the means to, but to fall back to RDF/XML otherwise. 

== SJ-1 ==

There was a request to add a requirement that ALL methods return the ETag or Last-Modified value of the current state of the resource. I think this is a bit much to request of all applications and the paragraph before 5.1 Status Codes already encourages the use of cache control headers with appropriate references


[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:IM-1
[2] http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:SJ-1


-- 
Chime Ogbuji
Sent with Sparrow
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2011 14:16:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:46 GMT