- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:50:25 +0100
- To: "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 23 Sep 2009, at 19:09, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > Chimezie, I think I understand what you're saying, but wanted to ask > you whether defining update in the /Protocol document as its own > interface (so it can be found to its own URI endpoint) but _also_ > defining the update operation to have an update= (rather then > query=) parameter would satisfy your HTTP sensibilities. > > This would (I think) mean that admins who wanted to could deploy on > separate URIs and maintain the "URI drives operation" setup that > your'e advocating, while other admins could have a single endpoint > which dispatches to a SPARQL/Query or SPARQL/Update processor based > on whether query= or update= is sent up. That's certainly my preferred solution. - Steve -- Steve Harris Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK +44(0)20 8973 2465 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Thursday, 24 September 2009 10:03:55 UTC