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: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 21:46:22 +0100
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Message-Id: <D9BD863E-8F19-4220-BF78-361B8A3A6B89@deri.org>
To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
ok for me, so. thanks for the clarification.

best,
Axel 

On 5 Dec 2011, at 13:29, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> 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 20:47:06 GMT

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