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

Re: Review of Graph Store Protocol (action 564)

From: Chime Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 19:34:58 -0500
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <8F177FAA59D04BBD8435F1A139D1D772@gmail.com>
== Comment 13
> = Related to comment 10
> 
> Does the discussion about auto-creation of a graph name when POSTing to 
> the dataset URI, also apply to PUT?
I currently doesn't and I don't think it is applicable due to the semantics of PUT. In particular, the use of PUT assumes that the enclosed request will be be stored directly using the supplied Request-URI.
> This is another case where pulling the text out into it's own subsection 
> then mentioning from POTS and PUT would be better.
> 
> Generally, PUT and POST are the same except PUT replaces and POST 
> appends so in this case both should allocate a new named graph.
This is not my understanding of the semantics of both operations. PUT is an operation on a directly-identified resource while POST is a more generic operation and the body is assumed to be a subordinate of resource identified by the request.
> What happens with multipart? 
> One graph, all content or severalnew named 
> graphs? I'd expect the latter but I think the doc needs to say so.
Currently multipart only applies to POST and (in particular) to the append scenario. So, it is the equivalent of multiple POST / append operations against the same identified RDF graph content. 


-- 
Chime Ogbuji
Sent with Sparrow
Received on Tuesday, 6 December 2011 00:35:36 GMT

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