- 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