- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 11:57:20 +0100
- To: Kjetil Kjernsmo <Kjetil.Kjernsmo@computas.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On 4 Jun 2009, at 11:37, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote: > On Tuesday 02 June 2009 23:29:23 Chimezie Ogbuji wrote: >> +1 In addition this begs the question about 'compliance' levels. >> I.e., is >> such a server considered a 'SPARQL protocol service'? > > I'd say so... > >>> So, the simplest protocol is one where the HTTP Request-URI is the >>> graph >>> URI. >> >> Or perhaps a portion of the request URI is the graph URI? Consider >> Dave >> Beckett's triplr service, which takes GET requests against the >> following >> URI: >> >> http://triplr.org/turtle/www.kanzaki.com/works/ > > Hmmm, this breaks webarch, as far as I can see: > http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-opacity Nothing in http://triplr.org/turtle/www.kanzaki.com/works/ expects the *client* to break apart the URI or try to determine meaning from fragments it didn't assemble itself, so it has no more impact on opacity than ?graph=. >> I can imagine a perma-thread regarding how 'RESTful' such an >> approach is. > > Yeah, we should try to stay clear of those. + 1 - 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 Thursday, 4 June 2009 10:57:57 UTC