- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 15:48:08 -0800
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Cc: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, "SPARQL Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.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). .greg
Received on Sunday, 4 December 2011 23:48:32 UTC