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

Re: next steps on http graph store protocol

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:59:26 +0000
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-Id: <EE71ADD3-0254-43B3-A1D1-EC29B875320F@garlik.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
On 2012-01-10, at 14:12, Sandro Hawke wrote:

> On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 13:47 +0000, Steve Harris wrote:
>> On 2012-01-10, at 13:24, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> It sounds like where we actually disagree is about the scope of
>>> applicability of this spec.
>> 
>> Yes.
>> 
>>> If I understand how you're approaching the situation, maybe you'd be
>>> okay with the following text in Graph Store HTTP Protocol.   This text
>>> would probably go in the introduction, with its first sentence in the
>>> abstract:
>>> 
>>>       This protocol is only one of many possible HTTP (REST) protocols
>>>       one could use involving RDF payloads and RDF Graph Resources.
>>>       This specification only applies to one particular sort of RDF
>>>       graph storage system, the sort for which these operations are
>>>       the appropriate ones.  In contrast, for example, if one wanted a
>>>       Graph Store which also included some service components, where
>>>       POST was used to invoke operations, one would need to use a
>>>       different Graph Store HTTP Protocol and the constraints of this
>>>       document would not apply.
>> 
>> Seems tautological to me, but as you disagree it's clearly not.
>> 
>> If you have a Graph Store - use the Graph Store Protocol. If you don't have a Graph Store (e.g. IBM) then use something else. Seems self evident.
>> 
>> In other words, I'd be OK with the quoted text above, though I'm not sure "one would need to use a different Graph Store HTTP Protocol" makes sense, as the thing in question wouldn't be a Graph Store, by definition would it?
> 
> It wouldn't be a "SPARQL 1.1 Graph Store", true.   I think these future
> RDF graph storage systems that also provide some services ought to be
> able to call themselves "graph stores" and/or "Graph Stores".    Perhaps
> we could use a phrase like, "in this document, the term 'Graph Store'
> means a SPARQL 1.1 Graph Store", and that would suffice.

Yes. I was using Caps to indicate a SPARQL 1.1 Graph Store, as opposed to just any "graph store".

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2012 15:02:47 GMT

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