Re: Some comments on F&R (2)

On Wednesday 10 June 2009 11:46:09 Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> I prefer putting protocol under update to be clear it is in support of
> update.  "Enhancement" suggests tweaks to the query protocol to me but we
> wish to leave the design space open and avoid prejudging naming issues. 
> Also, the new protocol is there to support update so make that explicit.

I'll just quickly respond to this as it is the only point where I disagree, 
and let others chime in to discuss the rest:

I'm not thinking about the protocol just in terms of update, I'm thinking 
about it as a successor to http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-protocol/
Thus, HTTP graph update is just a part of it, there may be Service Description 
issues going into the SPARQL Protocol. Perhaps not much more, though. 
Nevertheless I feel that's reason enough to keep them separate.

Kind regards 

Kjetil Kjernsmo
-- 
Senior Knowledge Engineer / SPARQL F&R Editor
Mobile: +47 986 48 234
Email: kjetil.kjernsmo@computas.com   
Web: http://www.computas.com/

|  SHARE YOUR KNOWLEDGE  |

Computas AS  PO Box 482, N-1327 Lysaker | Phone:+47 6783 1000 | Fax:+47 6783 
1001

Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2009 10:29:30 UTC