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

Re: draft response to TI-3

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:29:47 -0500
Message-ID: <4EDCB93B.3090600@thefigtrees.net>
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 GMT

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