- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:02:42 -0500
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 05:49:58PM +0000, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > The parameter names only mean anything in the context of a request to a > SPARQL > query service. Global names would be needed only if two services can be at > the same service endpoint - I don't know of examples of that - anyone got > any? Protocol design also allows requests to graphs (hence, Bryan's point about resource-centric apps and the possibilities of clash): /foaf.rdf?key=value isn't something I can find an example of this minute, but I'd be *astonished* if there are NO implementations like this. And if there are "query" and "graph" and other generic terms seem ripe for clashing. > A more likely situation is that services live at different service > endpoints so > the confusion can't arise. Yes, but that ignores the resource and graph centric "way" of the Web and implementation strategy. It's perfectly legit, and I can't ignore it. > I'm not concerned until there is a concrete example of a problem because I > don't > worry about requests meant for one service type being sent to another; I > don't > see a need for a "universal" service either. Again, we're dealing with resources AND services, not one or the other. Clashes seem much more likely w/ resources than services. I'm concerned even if we can't find an example *this minute*. > ':' might need to be encoded :-( Ah, yes, of course. How stupid of me. > I think we need to quantify the issue first. Why quantify? Do you mean there's a threshold of existing possible clashes that you require before this is a "real" issue? How high is this threshold? Kendall -- Sometimes it's appropriate, even patriotic, to be ashamed of your country. -- James Howard Kunstler
Received on Friday, 17 December 2004 18:04:17 UTC