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

Re: "RDF Knowledge" (Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs)

From: Gregg Reynolds <dev@mobileink.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:53:03 -0600
Message-ID: <AANLkTintbGW+pdfJkaLoU=wQu5Czi5Jdm-MPFjhRE=5i@mail.gmail.com>
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.

Received on Friday, 18 February 2011 19:53:36 UTC

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