- From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
- Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 18:10:45 +0200
- To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On Sunday 11. October 2009 14:48:51 Steve Harris wrote: > 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. Right, but is it relevant? I think that if it is relevant to mention it should be there, to chase out comments. If it is likely to chase out an irrelevant debate, it shouldn't be there, I think. > 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. Yup, our discussion may very well not be. I would really like to have a straw poll on the topic before we proceed any further. But then, I understand that people want a FPWD ASAP... If we do have enough time for a straw poll, I suggest voting over the following questions, separately: 1) The HTTP Update protocol is required to be RESTful. (+1, yes; 0, preferred, but not required; -1, it could be anything) 2) The protocol must specify how to use POST, PUT, GET and DELETE on a URI identifying information resource graph. (+1, yes, required; 0, optional; -1, WG shouldn't spend time on it) 3) The protocol must specify how to use manipulate a graph with a proxy graph identifier. (+1, yes, required; 0, optional; -1, WG shouldn't spend time on it) They can be voted on separately, if it is voted in 1) that it must be RESTful and we can't find a way to do it in 3), we must drop it, after a thorough investigation. Cheers, Kjetil -- Kjetil Kjernsmo kjetil@kjernsmo.net http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/
Received on Sunday, 11 October 2009 16:11:20 UTC