- From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:11:35 -0400
- To: "Chimezie Ogbuji" <ogbujic@ccf.org>, "Gregory Williams" <greg@evilfunhouse.com>, "SPARQL Working Group WG" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
The question of how the clarifications I proposed addresses the ISSUE as currently worded came up in today's teleconference. This is my attempt to describe this and give my input as to an appropriate response to the recent comment on this issue [1]: [[[ The TAG provides *advice* to the community that they may mint "http" URIs for any resource provided that they follow this simple rule for the sake of removing *ambiguity* (agreed on 15 Jun 2005)" [2] ]]] The emphasis is mine - the first indicating that (as far as I know) http-range-14 is advice from the TAG not a W3C recommendation and it is not clear what the procedure is regarding dependencies between REC track documents and TAG findings - maybe the chairs, team contacts, etc. can clarify. The second emphasis indicates that http-range-14 is meant to address ambiguity about what is (essentially) the denotation of a URI as a result of interacting with it over HTTP. Given the clarifications I proposed (which included a clear(er) distinction between graphs, their documents, and networked RDF knowledge), including: [[[ Following the terminology in [AWWW], the intuition here is that messages in this HTTP protocol use graph IRIs to access the underlying graph store. The graph IRIs identify networked RDF knowledge. Networked RDF knowledge is distinguished from other kinds of (information) resources by the fact that they are primarily represented by an RDF document and these RDF documents are serializations of RDF graphs in the underlying graph store. ]]] I'm not sure where there is still ambiguity since it is clear what graph URIs 'refer' to - we have a name for it, we have described its role in the protocol, defined it to be a special kind of IR, and how it can be interacted with over HTTP. HTTP Update says "The HTTP GET method SHOULD be used to retrieve a graph representation of the networked RDF knowledge identified by the Request-URI." So, the response *should* include a 200 status since (by definition) RDF networked knowledge is an IR that is *primarily* represented by an RDF document, however, even if it returned 303 - no additional distinction can be determined (per http-range-14). Interactions with the protocol via graph URIs target networked RDF knowledge rather than graphs (hopefully this is clearer), so the question of whether an RDF graph is an IR is not relevant. [1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Apr/0001 .html [2]http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#httpRange-14 -- Chime =================================== P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top hospitals in America by U.S.News & World Report (2009). Visit us online at http://www.clevelandclinic.org for a complete listing of our services, staff and locations. Confidentiality Note: This message is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy. Thank you.
Received on Tuesday, 27 April 2010 15:12:46 UTC