Re: [ISSUE-32] Implications of updates on protocol, regarding HTTP methods

Kendall Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Paul Gearon<gearon@ieee.org> wrote:
> 
>> From section 2.2:
>> "The queryHttpGet binding should be used except in cases where the
>> URL-encoded query exceeds practical limits, in which case the
>> queryHttpPost binding should be used."
> 
> Ah, that seems fine since the URL-encoded bit makes it clear what's
> under consideration.
> 
>>>> Option 2 appears to offer the least difficulty. Are other options available?
>>> It's reasonable to expect that this option will have a high public
>>> cost as it's a style of HTTP interface that is frowned upon by some
>>> people. And in my experience their frowning can be quite costly to
>>> process during Last Call, etc. FWIW. :>
>> It may do, and I acknowledge the point. However, there seems to be
>> popular support for a language that can perform updates (including
>> with my users), and the only network interface I like using these days
>> is HTTP.
> 
> Sorry, I wasn't that clear: of course, I'm talking about people who
> will object that "overloading POST" is *not* good REST style or isn't
> RESTful at all, not people who will object to the use of HTTP per se.
> 
> Some people want to inspect each request; others think this is
> craziness, so I don't think there's anything that will satisfy
> everyone.
> 
>>  Hopefully, the inclusion of the REST-style interface will go
>> some way to mollifying those people you're referring to.
> 
> No, my point is that Option 2 will *not* be seen as REST-style by some people.

If I understand this correctly (possibly not since I've been out of the 
loop for a couple of weeks), Paul's discussion is around the protocol 
for communicating SPARQL/Update query strings around over HTTP.

This is distinct from the (true?) RESTful operations that the WG has 
resolved to define where appropriate for RDF graph modification.

Lee

Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 19:13:32 UTC