- From: Gregg Reynolds <dev@mobileink.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:53:03 -0600
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Cc: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net> wrote: > Hi Gregg, > > Thanks for clarifying your primary concerns with the draft > specification. I've combined a few comments from your two most recent > emails to focus on what seems to be the most substantive part of your > feedback. ... > In light of your comments, the Working Group discussed the status of > this specification, which, in response to other feedback, is now called > the SPARQL 1.1 RDF Dataset HTTP Protocol. The Working Group completed a > requirements-gathering phase in the middle of 2009; as a result of that > activity, the group was re-chartered with a set of concrete > requirements. Among those chartered requirements is the definition of a > "protocol to update RDF graphs using ReSTful methods". The Working Group > felt then and still feels that defining the meaning of common HTTP > operations against RDF graphs will aid in interoperability among > deployed RDF datasets on the Web. At this time, the Working Group > intends to continue with the publication of this specification. Fair enough. > > Regarding your other comments, the Working Group believes that the > specification is consistent with the meaning of RDF graph in the > existing RDF specifications. Additionally, the specification reflects > the definition of RDF datasets from the SPARQL 1.0 query specification > (see http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#rdfDataset). If you feel > that this is not the case, we would appreciate it if you could point to > specific text within the specification that conflicts with the existing > definitions. I'll keep an eye on the next drafts and let you know if I perceive any problems. On some issues of definition etc. the new RDF WG is probably a more appropriate venue anyway. > > We would be grateful if you would acknowledge that your comment has been > answered by sending a reply to this mailing list. I'm satisfied that somebody read my comments and took them seriously (thanks Chimezie), which is all I ask. Thanks, -Gregg
Received on Friday, 18 February 2011 19:53:36 UTC