Re: IBM Graph Update Protocol document

Am Dienstag, den 14.07.2009, 14:08 +0200 schrieb Kjetil Kjernsmo:
> Hi Simon, All,
> 
> I think this is a very interesting proposal. I have a few comments.
> 
> First, in both replace graph and delete graph, the text says that the
> request should be made against the {graph-store} URI. Is this correct?
> Shouldn't it be the {graph-uri}? It seems to be the latter in the list
> earlier in the document and the following examples, and it seems to be
> the right thing.
> 
> I see two main issues with respect to the proposals that have been
> circulating around here.
> 
> The largest issue is whether it should be possible to manipulate
> graphs that has a graph-URI which is not dereferenceable on the host
> of the SPARQL endpoint, i.e. if the endpoint is
> http://example.org/sparql should it be possible to manipulate a graph
> with the URI http://graphs.example.com/graph/dahut ?
> As far as I can see from your proposal, it would be possible to insert
> such a graph by using the Graph header, but no further manipulation
> would be possible. Is that correct?
> 
> This issue seems to be where Simon Schenk and I went in diametrically
> different directions; I feel that manipulating those graphs should be
> time-permitting only, whereas Simon felt we should do only that and
> that the case where the graph-uri can be manipulated directly is not
> very interesting. I suppose he is on vacation and cannot correct me if
> I misrepresent his opinions, if I do it is unintentional.
> 
I guess it is interesting, but not the most common case. Anyway, if the
graph URI can be manipulated directly we are very close to standard HTTP
semantics, so that should be easy to specify. 

The other case would be more complicated, but generally applicable; also
if the graph URI also can be manipulated directly.

Cheers,
SimonS
-- 
Simon Schenk | ISWeb | Uni Koblenz
http://isweb.uni-koblenz.de
http://www.uni-koblenz.de/~sschenk
Five sentences policy: http://five.sentenc.es/