- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:15:50 +0000
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 2010-11-25, at 14:50, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > On 25/11/10 10:40, Steve Harris wrote: > .. >> The fact that POST updates are not yet fully specified in http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-http-rdf-update/#http-post is a source of concern to us. >> >> - Steve > > Could you say what isn't specified and should be? I don't remember exactly. I think it wasn't clear if the payload should me a mime form, or GET-style URI fields. > Currently I use the Content-type to get the syntax, the body is the payload and payload = RDF document from earlier in the spec. Where do you get the graph URI from? > I return 200 if the target existed, and 201 if it didn't which is my (limited) understand of correct status codes for HTTP. Sounds reasonable. I don't know what we do offhand. - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Thursday, 25 November 2010 16:16:26 UTC