Re: PROV-ISSUE-627 (URI-specified-or-REST): Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI or always use template?

On Feb 7, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl> wrote:

> Interestingly this impacts my view of the rdf syntax requirement of the service description.
> 
> A key question for me is does the mandate for rdf for the service description hurt potential uptake from people who provide services using other very common techniques (e.g. Json web services) . My prior view was the definition of a best practice URL was a way of helping adoption.
> 
> Hmmm - I will look again at service description formats. I think content negotiation may be the way outů

+1 conneg solves it.

-Tim


> 
> Paul
> 
> On Feb 7, 2013, at 20:27, Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Tim,
>> 
>> Things have changed from last time, because the same link relation is being used 
>> to access multiple query mechanisms (something you argued for :^) ).  This is a 
>> design choice that is a large extent guided by REST principles.  So now I shall 
>> argue more strongly for sticking with a full-REST pattern.
>> 
>> The client should not have any prior knowledge of how the server URI space is 
>> used.  That's a basic constraint of REST.  Hence the client MUST learn about the 
>> URI from the service (in this case from the servioce description).  That's what 
>> the template defines.
>> 
>> #g
>> --
>> 
>> On 07/02/2013 16:18, Timothy Lebo wrote:
>>> On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:52 AM, "Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker" <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> PROV-ISSUE-627 (URI-specified-or-REST): Should PROV-AQ specify PROV service URI
>>> +1
>>> 
>>>> or always use template?
>>> -1
>>> 
>>> (just as in the last time we had this thread)
>>> 
>>> -Tim
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/627
>>>> 
>>>> Raised by: Graham Klyne
>>>> On product:
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 19:52:59 UTC