- From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 11:30:52 -0500
- To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <513A9F5E-D9AA-4AC1-B74B-3FFA1ACE1985@3roundstones.com>
Hi Arnaud, Nope, I'm just busy and not up to speed! Sorry, the status quo satisfies me. Regards, Dave -- http://about.me/david_wood On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:31, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote: > Hi David, > Did you see what we said about this on our WG page? > > http://www.w3.org/2012/ldp/wiki/Main_Page#Linked_Data_Platform_.28LDP.29_vs_SPARQL_Graph_Store_HTTP_Protocol_.28GSP.29 > > I take it that the status quo doesn't satisfy you. > -- > Arnaud Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group > > > David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote on 12/11/2012 07:07:13 AM: > > > From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> > > To: Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS, > > Cc: public-ldp-wg@w3.org > > Date: 12/11/2012 07:13 AM > > Subject: 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 status notes that it "may be superseded".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 WGpage [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
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 16:31:22 UTC