- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:30:47 -0500
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: "Thompson, Bryan B." <BRYAN.B.THOMPSON@saic.com>, "'Dan Connolly '" <connolly@w3.org>, "'public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org '" <public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org>, "'RDF Data Access Working Group '" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, "Bebee, Bradley R." <BRADLEY.R.BEBEE@saic.com>
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 12:59:06PM +0000, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > Like RDF assertions about any document - we (DAWG) don't need to provide a > mechanism to find, publish, change, sign, ... such information as it can be > a regular RDF graph somewhere. In case the record isn't clear yet, I have serious, principled disagreements with this position: 1. There's a real technical need: discovering service descriptions is a real, tractable problem; punting on it requires more human-to-human communication, increasing costs, deployment time, and decreasing off the shelf interop. 2. There are solutions that will work now and provide value: having some standard conventions about how clients ask servers for the URI of the service description is not a difficult thing to standardize -- here I'm not talking about what RDF vocabulary *is* the SPARQL service description, merely putting into the protocol some simple mechanism that allows a responder to say to a requester "the service description URI is foo". (This could be as simple as "OPTIONS *" in the HTTP binding. Despite avowals to the contrary, I think the plain meaning of OPTIONS in HTTP 1.1 is consistent with this usage.) Since we're not at all reluctant about hardcoding URIs -- thus dictating to people the shape of their URIspace, violating a core Webarch principle (IMO) -- why not dictate a URI that means "give me back any machine readable description of this SPARQL service"? GET /qps or GET /qps?graph=tag:w3.org,2004-12-16:/sparql-p/abstract/service-description This would seem to be upwardly compatible with reasonable, more involved solutions to come later. Sparql service processors can do redirects on that URL indefinitely, for example. 3. Partial solutions can be very useful: managing service description evolution (Andy's "change") and authentication (his "sign") are harder problems, but I don't think we have to solve *all* of them to do something simple. Kendall Clark
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2004 14:32:21 UTC