W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Responses to GSP comments discussed in last telecon

From: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 10:01:05 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKSO3unRaFMDF5nfvReyB5ij2sJyo80-FCM4aXTD_2g4XqPSzw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com> wrote:
>
> On May 29, 2012, at 9:25 AM, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
>
>> I have drafted responses to the GSP comments we discussed during the
>> last teleconference.
>>
>> See:
>> - http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:JL-3
>
Perhaps I can reword that section differently (or remove it all
together - as the procedural issue is more robust), but still it is
not clear to me how providing a specific HTTP API for the situation
where a resource of interest cannot be directly addressed is counter
to the REST style.  Can you say why it applies, more specifically?

> I'm not sure about this one. You say:
>
> """
> Secondly, it is not immediately apparent why the current approach can be considered a hardcoding approach as this critique can be applied to other specified HTTP APIs (such as the SPARQL RDF protocol's use of the ?query query string to specify the SPARQL to evaluate). Given the specific role of this protocol (the management of a graph store over HTTP) it is not immediately clear how it could come to be in conflict with other types of indirect requests.
> """
>
> I don't think the critique can be equally applied to the Protocol's use of ?query, as the Protocol doesn't ever use the word "REST". The GSP document describes itself as being "in the REST architectural style," which is why this critique can be applied.
>
> .greg
>
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2012 14:02:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:48 GMT