Re: Closing ISSUE-5: Add a section explaining how LDBP is related to Graph Store Protocol

Hi all,

The SPARQL 1.1 HTTP Graph Store Protocol [1] is in CR, but also its status notes that it "may be superseded".  I'm not sure what that means.  Its introduction says:
[[
This document describes the use of HTTP operations for the purpose of managing a collection of RDF graphs. This interface is an alternative to the SPARQL 1.1 Update protocol. Most of the operations defined here can be performed using that interface, but for some clients or servers, this interface may be easier to implement or work with. This specification may serve as a non-normative suggestion for HTTP operations on RDF graphs which are managed outside of a SPARQL 1.1 graph store.
]]
…which certainly sounds like an overlap with LDP to me and thus ISSUE-5 makes sense.  We should feel an obligation to align W3C Recommendations.

I propose that the LDP WG formally ask Chimezie Ogbuji (the editor) and the SPARQL WG to consider folding the requirements for the SPARQL 1.1 HTTP Graph Store Protocol specification into the LDP specification, and to withdraw the CR.  This would have the benefits of aligning the specification family, reducing duplication and satisfying a greater number of use cases.

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood



On Dec 10, 2012, at 16:43, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> As I was looking closer to the list of open issues I realized that this one [1] actually ought to be simply close as is. 
> 
> Unfortunately at the beginning I failed to make sure that our minutes clearly reflected the resolutions we made and looking at our archives I can't quite reconstruct the exact history here. 
> 
> The issue change log reads: "decided at the telcon 9/24/2012: keep it on record (OPEN) for now, before we decide what to do." even though the minutes from that day [2] don't clearly support that. 
> 
> At the same time, the week before we decided to address the relationship between LDP and GPS by adding a paragraph to the LDP WG page [3]. 
> 
> So, I don't see why we would still want to keep this issue open. As a consequence I'm putting this one up for review. 
> If anyone has any lights to shed on this or wants to object please let me know. 
> Thanks. 
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/track/issues/5 
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2012-09-24
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/meeting/2012-09-17#sparql_graph_store_protocol__2c__overview_by_steve_speicher 
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group