- From: Simon Schenk <sschenk@uni-koblenz.de>
- Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:35:06 +0200
- To: Kjetil Kjernsmo <Kjetil.Kjernsmo@computas.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1244115306.977.17.camel@tweety>
Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 04.06.2009, 12:45 +0200 schrieb Kjetil Kjernsmo: > ught a bit about the design space for the RESTful protocol. I guess > > we have to distinguish the following cases: > > > > a) A graph is accessible at the URI, which also happens to be it's name. > > Some standard Webserver might be sufficient here. For SPARQL/Update this > > is just a corner case. > > In what sense is it a corner case? Indeed, for SPARQL/Update, the URI is just > a name and not different from any other name, but for the HTTP server it is > what makes it simple and straightforward from a Webarch and REST perspective. Jep. But the problem is, I do not think, that a high percentage of SPARQL endpoints (or graph stores) available at http://my.server/sparql restrict the valid graph names to http://my.server/sparql*. Hence, while a) is architectually very nice and clean, I doubt it has much practical use. There will not be many graphs, which could be modified that way. Now consider the following example: If I wanted to update http://www.uni-koblenz.de/~sschenk/foaf.rdf, then that would require http://www.uni-koblenz.de/~sschenk or http://www.uni-koblenz.de to be a graph store endpoint. OK, fair enough. But we already have a properly configured Apache there, to I do not need a SPARQL/update spec to get the desired behaviour. But I have an endpoint at http://demetrios.isweb.uni-koblenz.de/openrdf-sesame/, which contains this graph. If I want to update the graph in the store. Unfortunately, in this case the semantics is not as clear. Hence, I need a spec here. I think it makes more sense to spend our time on something, which is broadly usable, though maybe more complicated, than on a feature, which only works under certain assumptions. If we only support a) I guess we can as well save time and drop REST support altogether (which would be a pity). > > b) A SPARQL endpoint holds a set of named graphs and a default graph. > > > > b1) We talk about a dataset in the SPARQL/Query sense. There can be many > > such datasets available at the endpoint. We need to identify the dataset > > as well as the graphs in the dataset. > > > > b2) We talk about a graph store, consisting of a default graph and a set > > of named graphs. > > > > I propose to ignore a), as it is a corner case. > > I propose to ignore b1), as it becomes complicated, once we start > > talking about datasets as first class objects. > > > > My thoughts about b2): > > This is, if I understand you correctly, almost the opposite of my proposal. I > think that a) should be the requirement, b1) ignored, and b2) mostly left to > the language, but a time-permitting feature if we can find a way to > gracefully reconcile it with Webarch and REST. I guess, yes. The reason is: requiring a) does not seem sensible to me, as I explained above, and b2) is the common case, which should be addressed. Best regards, Simon -- Simon Schenk | ISWeb | Uni Koblenz http://isweb.uni-koblenz.de http://www.uni-koblenz.de/~sschenk
Received on Thursday, 4 June 2009 11:35:41 UTC