Re: Alternative names for HTTP/Update specification

On 23/01/11 22:06, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> On 1/23/2011 3:25 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 21/01/11 17:28, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:
>>> I had an ACTION from an earlier teleconference to propose alternative
>>> names for the HTTP/Update specification. Below are (numbered)
>>> suggestions, starting with the 2 Dave Beckett suggested along with
>>> others suggested during that teleconference:
>>>
>>> 1. SPARQL 1.1 RDF Graph Management Protocol
>>> 2. SPARQL 1.1 RDF Dataset Management Protocol
>>> 3. SPARQL 1.1 RESTful Graph Protocol
>>> 4. SPARQL 1.1 HTTP Graph Protocol
>>> 5. SPARQL 1.1 HTTP Graph Management Protocol
>>> 6. SPARQL 1.1 RDF Dataset HTTP Protocol
>>>
>>> There was a suggestion of removing SPARQL 1.1 from the name, so
>>> alternatives are:
>>>
>>>
>>> 7. RDF Graph Management Protocol
>>> 8. RDF Dataset Management Protocol
>>> 9. RESTful Graph Protocol
>>> 10. HTTP Graph Protocol
>>> 11. HTTP Graph Management Protocol
>>> 12. RDF Dataset HTTP Protocol
>>>
>>> My personal preference is 12 and 6
>>>
>>> -- Chime
>>>
>>
>> My preferences:
>>
>> 6 > 4 = 3 > 12 > 10 = 9
>>
>> The pattern is:
>> "SPARQL 1.1"
>> "RDF Dataset" before "RDF Graph" before "HTTP Graph"
>
> I'm trying to wrap my head around the intuition for preferring "RDF
> Dataset" because, to me, the spec in question deals with individual
> graphs more than it deals with RDF Datasets (a default graph plus zero
> or more named graphs). But From Andy and Chime's preferences, I'm
> guessing I'm just not looking at it the right way, so can anyone help me
> out?
>
> thanks,
> Lee

For me, it is that it deals in graphs but it operates on a container of 
graphs.  This is most noticeable in the "?graph=", and that's one of the 
features the work is adding (together with the specific interpretation 
of POST as add triples).  Or maybe I'm just dataset-centric due to 
current work.

3,4 are fine with me, 6 is just more preferred.

	Andy

Received on Monday, 24 January 2011 09:37:45 UTC