W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > October 2005

Re: SPARQL and RDF Forms

From: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 14:21:37 +0100
Message-ID: <434524E1.1020607@ldodds.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
CC: www-archive@w3.org

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 Vinci
Received on Thursday, 6 October 2005 13:22:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:53 GMT