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

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

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:57:57 +0100
Message-ID: <4E844F35.7080804@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org

On 27/09/11 18:12, Gregory Williams wrote:
> On Sep 27, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Chime Ogbuji wrote:
>> == 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
> While I agree with the spirit of the suggestion, I would object to
> making this a requirement. I think the specifics of how to do this
> naturally falls out of from the relevant specs, but forcing
> implementations to do etag/last-modified headers seems like a big
> burden.

+1 : not a requirement.

In fact, I see this as orthogonal to the SPARQL Graph Store Protocol. 
It's proper use of HTTP and not specific to SPARQL.

Like IM-1 and the concurrency point response:

Concurrency management is beyond the scope of this protocol and 
implementations should be able to do what they see fit to support 
concurrent access etc.

FWIW I'm planning on adding ETags to Fuseki.

> .greg
Received on Thursday, 29 September 2011 10:58:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:04 UTC