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

Re: Questions and comments on SPARQL 1.1 Graph Store HTTP Protocol draft

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:44:08 +0000
Message-ID: <4EF35E58.6030201@epimorphics.com>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Re-directed to the working group list.

On 22/12/11 16:01, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>> One convention we have adopted is to use the null relative URL (<>  in
>>> Turtle, or "" in RDF/XML). I'd like to know whether there is a standard
>>> way of doing this. Maybe the spec should indicate one.
>> This would require a base URI resolution mechanism that would (in the end) simply resolve this to the request-URI (per base URI resolution rules). The WG has decided to not support a base URI resolution mechanism for this specification. So, without a discovery mechanism the only way to perform this "append" behavior is to know the URI of the Graph Store before hand and to POST to it directly.
> So the suggested workaround is to POST to the graphstore to get a new
> URL allocated, then PUT your graph to that new address.   And your
> understanding is that the technique Arnaud is suggesting -- defining the
> base URI as the URI that is allocated to hold the content -- could be
> standardized in the future?


By your reading, does RFC 3986 "5.1.  Establishing a Base URI" and RFC 
2616 defining a request URI apply here?

If so, doesn't that say what the base URI is?
If not, why don't these RFCs apply?

Received on Thursday, 22 December 2011 16:44:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:05 UTC