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

Re: draft response to TI-3

From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 15:48:08 -0800
Cc: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0260956C-09FB-446A-ACD7-45C0E151EC3A@evilfunhouse.com>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
On Dec 4, 2011, at 2:59 PM, Axel Polleres wrote:

> 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.
> ?

I think the answer is obvious, he just doesn't want to do it. He says, "I don't want to pollute GET requests to [the resource] with SD triples." While perhaps useful, I think this pattern of his of combining a document/graph/endpoint is dubious when it comes to the proper interpretation of what the resource actually *is* (and therefore what the proper response should be to any given request).

Received on Sunday, 4 December 2011 23:48:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:05 UTC