- From: <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:13:42 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> On 17 Apr 2015, at 11:09, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > > On 2015-04-17 10:37, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote: >> >>> On 10 Apr 2015, at 18:00, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Please see: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-snell-search-method/ >>> >>> Comments welcome. >> >> [[ >> The payload returned in response to a SEARCH cannot be >> assumed to be a representation of the resource identified by the >> effective request URI. >> ]] >> >> I think that should rather be >> >> [[ >> The payload returned in response to a SEARCH is a partial >> representation of the resource identified by the effective >> request URI. >> ]] > > I don't think that's the intention, nor would it be consistent with the current use of SEARCH. > >> The way I think one has to understand SEARCH is in the context of the >> other the two other HTTP verbs: >> >> - GET: returns a representation of the effective request URI >> - PUT: changes the representation of the effective request URI to the new representation >> >> then SEARCH is like PATCH just a way of efficiently doing GET and PUT >> >> - SEARCH: allows on to get a part of the full representation of the request URI ( using whatever is the >> most appropriate query language ) > > Depending on the query language, the result might just be a list of URIs. I don't see how to interpret this as partial representation... Ah yes, I had forgoten that case. In that case can one not think of the query combined with the answer as forming a partial representation of the resource? In your hypotehtical SPAQRL example you request parts of the remote table. If the client made a number of such requests, say asking for each column individually, it could in the end re-constitute the whole table. ( assuming the etag had not changed ) It would be interesting if the client could make such deductions from a number of queries. > >> - PATCH: allows one to replace part of the representation of the request URI >> >> >> It may be that by making this clear in the document it becomes easier for reviewers >> to understand that of course this does not require a representation to be specified, the >> same way that the GET verb does not require one. >> >> Also I am not sure what in 4.2 you mean by a ""SPAQRL query. >> >> >> Henry >> >> Social Web Architect >> http://bblfish.net/ > > Best regards, Julian Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Friday, 17 April 2015 10:14:13 UTC