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

Re: SPARQL and RDF Forms

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 10:13:50 -0400
To: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <20051006141350.GP4514@markbaker.ca>

On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 02:21:37PM +0100, Leigh Dodds wrote:
> >>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=....

Ah, I hadn't noticed that part of the protocol.  Yes, sure, that would
make sense.  You should submit that as a comment.

Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.          http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies   http://www.coactus.com
Received on Thursday, 6 October 2005 14:11:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:42:54 UTC