- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 14:00:41 +0100
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
- Cc: Carlos Buil Aranda <cbuil@fi.upm.es>
I added this as a proposal to the Last call page: http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/To_Last_Call#WG_issues_.26_needed_decisions_5 PROPOSED: Remove Section http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/fed/service#mediaType from Federated Query document. Axel On 13 May 2011, at 15:35, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > Similar is different from the same. > > The question is whether the fact that this is an optional extension to > the query language means that it deserves or needs its own MIME type. > > My instinct would be "no". > > Lee > > On 5/13/2011 10:22 AM, Carlos Buil Aranda wrote: > > I don't think it is necessary since this is part of the main query > > document and it can't exist alone, so the media type should be similar > > to the one in the main query document. Actually they are quite similar. > > > > Carlos > > > > 2011/5/13 Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net <mailto:lee@thefigtrees.net>> > > > > I realize now that EricP had put in the MIME type section in fed > > query as an example, but suggested that we probably DON'T want a > > separate media type for it: > > > > """ > > It's probably not worth the cost of a differential media type. If it > > were, that registration would probably look like: > > """ > > > > Do you think that we should register a media type for federated query? > > > > If not, we'll just remove that section from the document. > > > > Lee > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 17 May 2011 13:01:10 UTC