Re: Comments on SPARQL draft (pt. 1) (insert)

(PS, following the points in Kendall's note) 

Just a vague question - how aligned with the (HTTP) Web are/should be
the SPARQL QL and Protocol?

The mention of SOAP got me thinking, where there's been a drift from
the full range of HTTP methods down to GET and POST. Now there seems
to be a backlash against the extent of the abstraction of the WS-*
specs, folks turning back towards RESTfulness.

Also, although I can understand the one-thing-at-a-time aspect of
leaving the TELL side of comms until later, there does seem to be a
precedent not far away with Web browsers being built in a primarily
read-only environment. I don't know, it may be totally irrelevant. For
that matter IE7 may support PUT...


On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:40:50 +0100, Danny Ayers <> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:03:43 -0600, Dan Connolly <> wrote:
> > insert/update isn't among our requirements or even objectives
> > so far. i.e. the WG seems to think we can advance the state of the
> > art without doing INSERT just yet. If you think W3C shouldn't do
> > a QL at all without insert, please elaborate.
> Thanks Dan, the charter's the charter. I'm sure the language will be
> advancing the state of the art, INSERT or not. But I wonder if there
> would be as many RDBMS-backed Web sites if SQL didn't have INSERT (and
> Cheers,
> Danny.
> --


Received on Monday, 21 March 2005 21:07:51 UTC