- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:29:47 -0500
- To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- CC: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 12/4/2011 6:48 PM, Gregory Williams wrote: > 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). Agreed. Lee > > .greg > >
Received on Monday, 5 December 2011 12:30:16 UTC