- From: Barry Norton <barry.norton@ontotext.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:17:00 +0100
- To: public-lod@w3.org
I'm sorry, but you seem to have misunderstood the use of a graph URI parameter in indirect graph addressing for GSP. I wish all GSP actions addressed graphs directly, Queries were all GETs, and that Updates were all PATCH documents, but a degree of pragmatism has been applied. Barry On 22/04/13 04:07, Mark Baker wrote: > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: >>> The original query language you describe is what makes the Web, the >>> Web. We can't just swap it out and expect the resulting architecture >>> to still be the Web and exhibit its same desirable architectural >>> properties. >> >> But I don't see how the following break the model: >> >> 1. sparql-protocol >> 2. sparql-update protocol >> 3. sparql-graph-store protocol. >> >> They are all HTTP based. > Yes, but so was SOAP :P That isn't to say that there are strong > architectural similarities between the above (in general) and SOAP, > only that both misuse HTTP to the point where they're not REST, and > their relationship to the Web is tenuous at best. > > sparql-update doesn't seem to have anything to do with HTTP AFAICT > (other than being tunnelled over POST), but the other two get caught > up in specifying what amounts to a profile of HTTP rather than in > using hypermedia to fit a SPARQL implementation behind an HTTP > interface. For example, GSP standardizes on the "graph" query > parameter, rather than use a GET form and a relation. Ditto for SPARQL > 1.1's use of "query". > > The problem here, and why SPARQL/HTTP solutions end up non-RESTful, is > that both are application protocols. How do you map FTP onto HTTP? > HTTP onto IMAP? POP onto FTP? You don't, because it makes no sense, > just as it makes no sense (to me) to map SPARQL onto HTTP. What you > *can* do, is build a pipeline (a proxy), where a client talks HTTP > (and only HTTP) to an HTTP server that is configured to talk FTP to an > FTP server. The key point there is that the client has absolutely no > idea that FTP is in use... which is as it should be with SPARQL. > > I'd be repeating myself to respond to each of your subsequent points > separately, so won't ;) > > Mark. >
Received on Monday, 22 April 2013 08:17:26 UTC