- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 17:31:08 +0100
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: Kjetil Kjernsmo <Kjetil.Kjernsmo@computas.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 27 May 2009, at 16:25, Seaborne, Andy wrote: >> >>> I have been trying to find groups of operations so we can be clear >> about >>> what does what: >>> >>> Tentative suggestion: >>> >>> 1/ Graph store management: Create/removal of graphs (names of >>> graphs) >> from >>> the graph store. >>> >>> 2/ Whole graph operation (graph exists - may have implicit >> create/delete): >>> clear, replace contents >>> >>> 3/ Changes to (nameable) graph: load data into (add triples), delete >> data, >>> insert data, delete by pattern, insert by pattern (this seems less >>> significant) >> >> Good. Also, HTTP protocol use, I don't to what extent we should view >> that as >> separate? > > I don't see the HTTP protocol use as adding operations that can't be > done by the language. They should be aligned. The language will > probably be able to do more. I disagree. The language can't take "local" (to the client) data in RDF/XML syntax and write it to a remote store. You can do $ sparql-update http://store.example/ 'LOAD <file:///tmp/data.rdf> INTO <http://example.com/data.rdf>' but that's not the same as $ curl -T /tmp/data.rdf 'http://store.example/?graph=http%3A%2F%2Fexample.com%2Fdata.rdf' due to the whole client/server thing. I suspect that the PUT/POST/DELETE type tuff is a more natural fit into the SPARQL Protocol doc, but no strong feelings on that. - Steve -- Steve Harris Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK +44(0)20 8973 2465 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 16:31:44 UTC