W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > February 2011

Re: Comments on SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol Working Draft 14 October 2010

From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 20:11:01 +0100
To: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-id: <201102022011.02582.kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
On Wednesday 2. February 2011 17:23:18 Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
> Kjetil and all.  My apologies if this response doesn't show up
> conveniently as part of the thread, but for some reason my email is no
> longer subscribed to this comment list and so I never received these
> important messages.  

Oh, OK! That explains why you haven't seen some of the comments, I'm sure!

> The audience is the same as most of the other SPARQL 1.1
> specifications: for developers who will implement it and users that
> will leverage it.

OK! Then it needs to be simplified a lot, I think. I mean, most developers 
would probably get a long way by just being told that "the graph URI identifies 
a bunch of triples. If you GET, PUT and DELETE those triples RESTfully, it 
does what you think it does. If you POST, then you add those that aren't 
already there".
> > Honestly, I think that the current
> > document is both too opaque and not sufficiently specified to be useful
> > to developers, but I also feel that the current discussion is
> > interesting and important.
> Can you be more specific about sections where it is opaque and
> underspecified and how they can be improved?

Right, it has been in my previous comments. I think all the definitions would 
only serve to confuse people, if it can't be defined in already familiar terms, 
we're doing something wrong. Sections that I find overly opaque include such 
things as I have pointed out earlier, such as that if a DELETE of a non-
existant graph is attempted, it should say so explicitly, but also note that I 
dispute the usefulness of this approach.

I posted a few comments in October and November about parts of the spec that I 
found too ambigious when I wrote an implementation, which makes it feel 


Kjetil Kjernsmo
Ph.d Research Fellow, Semantic Web
Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2011 19:11:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:28 UTC