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

Re: draft response to TI-3

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 23:59:05 +0100
Cc: "Gregory Williams" <greg@evilfunhouse.com>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CEE1FBC1-7676-4B1D-9077-2CA27F206023@deri.org>
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Hi Lee, Greg, 

While the draft answer is sure ok formally, would there be any hint we could give him how to 
solve his use case differently (without OPTIONS) in compliance with SD, i.e. is there anything 
we could  offer for his scenario:

> Rather than having a single endpoint for querying, each graph URI is
> its own endpoint.

?

Axel

On 29 Nov 2011, at 16:55, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> Looks good to me.
> 
> lee
> 
> On 11/29/2011 10:22 AM, Gregory Williams wrote:
> > My draft response to Toby Inkster's recent comment on the use of OPTIONS with service descriptions (TI-3) is ready for review:
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:TI-3
> >
> > thanks,
> > .greg
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
Received on Sunday, 4 December 2011 22:59:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:47 GMT