- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:00:09 -0400
- To: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
- Cc: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Chimezie Ogbuji<ogbujic@ccf.org> wrote: > I think allocating a URI to the endpoint and using it for things such as > discovery (even within a query) is a good practice even in an API > environment. It also *feels* very intuitiv +1. Especially since the endpoint URI is often -- at least in my experience -- the only thing I know about. So having some standard operation to perform with the endpoint URI as a parameter, the result of which returns a service description in RDF (or OWL) is the most appealing option for my organization. As for which operation (protocol level, query level), we tend to indifference. However, we mildly prefer: 1. DESCRIBE <serviceURI> in QL -- Lee's Option 4, IIRC (this one is especially nice since, in REST style, the representation returned by this query can just *point* to the service description via some specified predicate, rather than itself *being* the service description, in case existing services are already doing something different.) 2. GET /service-uri for protocol, which is a variant of Lee's Option 1, but w/out the link header. As I recall, GET /service-uri is available and the STTCPW. Cheers, Kendall
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 14:07:32 UTC