W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: ACTION-115: Note on proxy graph URI

From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 18:10:45 +0200
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-id: <200910111810.46378.kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
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.


Kjetil Kjernsmo
Received on Sunday, 11 October 2009 16:11:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:57 UTC