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

Re: Fwd: Protocol extensions for federated querying

From: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:33:08 -0400
Message-ID: <a25ac1f0910210933h6547bf1eg6660d5390695e141@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net> wrote:
> Paul Gearon wrote:
>> I'd like to see a form of POST that includes a SPARQL variable binding
>> result in the body (a la http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-XMLres/). In
>> this way the receiving query engine can work with prebindings that are
>> provided to it, allowing it to reduce the result that is to be
>> streamed back to the calling engine.
>> What do others think? Does this proposal have merit?
> Hi Paul,
> Do any systems that you know of implement this extension?

No, though I've started work on it myself because it's essential for
decent federated querying.

I found myself wishing that there was a standard for this so it could
be used with non-Mulgara systems. For this reason, a number of people
encouraged me to propose it to the group to be a part of federated
queries. I'd put it off before now, because I hadn't seen any movement
on federated queries.

> I'm wary to undertake significant changes that weren't necessarily part of
> our deliverables-gathering phase early on. That said, I say "necessarily"
> since of course this might be seen by the group as an essential part of
> "basic federated query", in which case it does indeed fit within our
> charter.

Yes, I agree that it's a little late to mention, but as I said, I
haven't seen any discussion on federated queries yet (did I miss it? I
may have), so I didn't know where/when to suggest it. Since it's still
listed as a "time-permitting" feature then I figured I should mention
it at least.

I don't really expect this to become part of the spec (though as
Andreas said, it's trivial to implement), but a note would be

Paul Gearon
Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 16:33:40 UTC

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