- From: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:13:59 -0500
- To: Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Kendall Clark<kendall@clarkparsia.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Paul Gearon<gearon@ieee.org> wrote: >> 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. But that's the point. This is to allow for SPARQL/Update interface to have an HTTP binding. This is *not* a REST interface - intentionally so. That said, we *also* want a REST interface, and it will need to coexist without interference. Those people who want to look at everything in REST should be able to ignore the Update-interface binding, and vice versa. Of course, some people will object anyway, but committee processes are about compromise. Regards, Paul
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 19:14:39 UTC