Mark Baker wrote: > Hi Leigh, > > I assume you won't mind if I CC www-archive ... No sure. >>I had questions about that design myself, but this alternative >>never occured to me. Personally I was considering merits >>of say: >> >>/graph/uri?query= >> >>i.e. pass the query as a parameter to the URI of the graph. >>Initially this seemed "better" as it was clearer that I was >>querying a graph. But obviously its limited in applicability when >>working with multiple graphs, and perhaps when defining >>an abstract protocol. >> >>Any thoughts on that? > > You mean that the "/graph/uri" part would be important to the client? > If so, I don't think that's such a good idea for opacity reasons. > > If you don't mean that, then I'm not sure what you mean since what > you describe is status quo with the SPARQL protocol and its use of GET. Hmmm let me try to clarify, and then you can still point out where I'm wrong :) I read SPARQL Protocol as defining a query endpoint, a service. The service takes parameters of the query, plus the data source URIs. i.e. /sparql?query=...&default-graph-uri=/uri/of/my/data I was musing on merits of: /uri/of/my/data?query=.... Cheers, L. -- Home: http://www.ldodds.com | "Simplicity is the ultimate Blog: http://www.ldodds.com/blog | sophistication" -- Leonardo da VinciReceived on Thursday, 6 October 2005 13:22:33 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 July 2008 08:09:41 GMT