Re: ACTION-115: Note on proxy graph URI

On 11 Oct 2009, at 13:35, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:

> All,
> I think we can do with some relatively minor modifications to go to  
> allthough it seems awkward to mark this as "at risk", when WG  
> members think
> this is the most useful part of the spec. Also, I strongly feel that  
> the
> term "networked RDF knowledge", needs to be replaced to avoid  
> derailing the
> discussion, but see my other email about whether an RDF graph should  
> be
> considered an information resource.
> I think this could do:
> Editorial Note: Issue with need for a specified query component
> The working group has also considered the need to use query components
> (e.g. the <code>graph</code> keyword in the above example) to  
> specify the
> URI of the graph to manage. This would be different from using the  
> Request
> URI of inbound messages to directly identify the networked RDF  
> knowledge.
> This feature is considered <strong>at risk</strong>, since it is  
> unclear to
> the WG whether this can or should be done according to REST  
> principles, and
> if not, should the feature be dropped? Other open questions include:  
> If an
> HTTP GET request is dispatched to such a URI, is the assumption that  
> the
> Request URI refers to a data-producing process rather than some  
> networked
> RDF knowledge represented by an RDF graph? Or is the 'proxy' URI  
> considered
> just another identifier for the same networked RDF knowledge?

It might be a good idea to avoid mentioning REST explicitly, it could  
be controversial. REST was not mentioned in the charter, so we have no  
particular obligation there.

Also, I'm not really sure the WG has any particular position, it was  
just a mailing list discussion between a few of us, and I'm not sure  
were representative of the group as a whole.

- Steve

Steve Harris
Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44(0)20 8973 2465
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10  

Received on Sunday, 11 October 2009 12:49:21 UTC