- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 12:30:11 -0400
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 03:00:12PM -0400, Mark Baker wrote:
> the same arguments with different operations). Instead of POSTing a
> SPARQL query that consists of an embedded operation, the query (without
> the operation) would be POSTed to one of the aforementioned four query
> processors.
Mark,
I'm not entirely sure what the import of yr comment is. Can I ask for
clarification?
For example, the present design motivates an implementation like this:
GET /sparql/?[query & dataset]
or
POST [query & dataset] /sparql
Where "query" is "SELECT ?a ?b ..." or "CONSTRUCT ..." or "DESCRIBE
<uri>..." or "ASK ..."
Yr suggested design, insofar as I understand it, motivates an implementation
like this:
GET /construct?[query & dataset]
GET /select?[query & dataset]
GET /ask?[query & dataset]
GET /describe?[query & dataset]
or
POST [query & dataset] /construct
POST [query & dataset] /select
POST [query & dataset] /ask
POST [query & dataset] /describe
Where "query" is similar to the pseudo-queries above, but with the query
form productions removed. Thus, for example, instead of "SELECT ?a ?b WHERE
{<foo> ?a ?b}", the on-the-wire query would be "?a ?b WHERE {<foo> ?a ?b}".
Is that what yr suggesting?
Cheers,
Kendall Clark
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2005 16:32:27 UTC