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

next steps on http graph store protocol

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 14:50:08 -0500
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1325879408.2589.426.camel@waldron>
As I understand it, the potentially-blocking issues are:

1.  I want to make sure it's okay to have some resources which are
subject to this protocol (with people doing GET and PUT of RDF to them),
for which POST does not mean "please merge".   I believe we have
consensus on this, framing it as some resources have this behavior and
some don't.  Eric is suggesting we name this class, so that people can
express in RDF whether a resource is this kind of resource.   (When he
and I brainstormed about this, I think our best suggestion for the URI
was http://www.w3.org/2012/http/PostMeansAppend.  One can easily imagine
a parallel PostMeansCreate, which would be true for the GraphStore
itself and any nested collections.   Another URI candidate:
http://www.w3.org/ns/http-post/AppendingResource (and
CreatingResource)).

2.  I want to make sure that we don't have any normative (RFC 2119)
language in sections labeled "non-normative" or "informative".  I'm not
sure where we got on this one.

3.  I want to make sure we don't require (at the SHOULD or MUST level)
people to implement SPARQL UPDATE if they want to implement PATCH.   I
think we had a agreement on this, but it got a little confused with
issue (2) above during the telecon, so I'm not sure.

4.  I understood Greg to be concerned about some connections with
Service Description.   I haven't gotten the gist of his concern. The
one thing I think we need from that connection is a way to find the
GraphStore URI (for use in making indirect URIs for named graphs) from
the endpoint address.   (I argued that we should just use the endpoint
address itself, bypassing SD for this, but no one else supported that
position.   I can live with the design that's been in the spec for some
time.)

5.  Now it looks like we might also have a concern about the Base URI
for POST and PUT operations.   Arnaud had a comment about this, and in
the latest emails Andy and I are disagreeing about what the relevant
RFCs say about this.
 
(I also continue to have some editorial concerns, like the use of the
term "RDF Graph content" for what the RDF WG calls "Graph Container",
but I can live with the current text, since it it is editorial.)

      -- Sandro
Received on Friday, 6 January 2012 19:50:27 GMT

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