Re: sparql-protocol.wsdl updated

Kendall Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:10:58AM +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> 
> 
>>It isn't a simple matter of implement-if-you-want.
> 
> 
> I don't agree. But no matter.
> 
> 
>>How about splitting the WSDL into two separate documents, one which is 
>>purely query and service discovery and one which contains update.
> 
> 
> I've been v. careful to distinguish between update in the *hard* sense
> and "creating/destroying remote resources". I wish we could agree to
> at least that, so that "update" isn't a brush to tar things with.

I guess from that comment that putting a graph does not overwite an existing 
one.  Is that the case?  I woudl liek to understand why these operations form a 
gropup and don't lead to a webdav-like set of requirements for graph manipulation.

> 
>   Then  
> 
>>other update approaches are compared along side update and not 
>>query+service description+update.
> 
> 
> That can and should happen whether or not they are in separate WSDL
> files. I really don't see the utility of two WSDLs. But I don't really
> care that much, either, so if there's general support for doing that,
> I'll do it.

Another way of structuring it would be one WSDL for query and service 
description, and one for GET-like(Retrieve)/PUT(Make)/DELETE(Drop) of graphs 
mapping closely to HTTP.  This would have the benefit of not making these 
distinguished from another (later) interface that manipulated contents of 
datasets.  Add to dataset, remove from dataset, get from dataset. etc etc.

	Andy

> 
> But as I've said a few times, if there isn't consensus about doing
> graph deletion and creation, I'll remove those
> interfaces. Implementers can always add them back and clients may
> choose to invoke those operations, of course.
> 
> Kendall Clark
>

Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2005 16:28:59 UTC