- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:34:51 +0000
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 25/11/10 16:15, Steve Harris wrote: > 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? If it's an http-rdf-update POST, it's ?graph= or ?default as for all the other operations specifically PUT. That's hard to drive from a form - need a bit of client-side code to create the URL to POST to). I don't drive HTTP RDF Update from a plain HTML form. Andy >> 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 >
Received on Thursday, 25 November 2010 16:35:22 UTC