- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 13:31:54 +0000
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, "public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
I can live with either design (?graph= or /service/). One minor advantage of the ?graph= form is that it fits the ?query= style but that isn't enough to make that the best design for me. Andy > -----Original Message----- > From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Steve Harris > Sent: 06 October 2009 17:18 > To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org Group > Subject: REST and HTTP Update > > I've had a quick look at the HTTP Update document, though nothing that > would count as a review. > > I share Kjetil's concerns about the REST thing, but on the other hand > I think it's a very important aspect of the protocol. > > An alternative, which I believe to be RESTful is to target requests to > > $endpoint + uriencode($graph) > > This is compatible with PUT and POST semantics, and I believe that it > conforms to REST ideals, though that may be arguable. > > Example: > > http://localhost:8080/data/http%3A%2F%2Fexample.com%2Fdata.rdf > > - Steve
Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 13:32:38 UTC