- From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
- Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 23:40:55 +0200
- To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Hi all! Long time no see... I've been relaying some comments on ISSUE-49 through Greg lately, but it isn't that easy to explain what I mean, and how the current HTTP bindings will confuse developers. I currently work with a number of developers who are antagonistic towards RDF, and I think is extremely important that they can appreciate that protocol, it is something very familiar to them that we are doing. Anyway, to explain that stuff properly, my plan is to write the code, it becomes easier to explain with actual code to point to, but I have very little time nowadays, so that may take some time before I get to. Meanwhile, what I would hope you could discuss is whether the SPARQL WG should adopt httpRange-14 is a normative reference for the group's work. My opinion is that this decision should be based on the importance this finding has for the greater Semantic Web community, and design SPARQL based on the constraints it sets. httpRange-14 is now well established as a best practice for the Linked Data movement, it resolves a long standing issue we've taken a lot of fire from the Topic Maps community over, and finally, it is what the TAG thinks we should be doing. If later, it is found to have no influence on the group's work, then fine, but I think it has and I hope it can be settled by a very quick straw poll. +1 on it being adopted as a normative reference from me :-) Cheers, Kjetil -- Kjetil Kjernsmo kjetil@kjernsmo.net http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/
Received on Friday, 23 April 2010 21:41:53 UTC