- From: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 07:55:53 -0400
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net> wrote: > In the wake of our discussion last week, the lack of subsequent discussion, > and our time and experience constraints, I plan to propose on Tuesday that > the SPARQL 1.1 service description cover the SPARQL Protocol _only_, and > that it not discuss graph stores or the dataset protocol at all. > Specifically: > PROPOSED: The SPARQL 1.1 Service Description describes endpoints that > implement the SPARQL 1.1 Protocol; it does not describe URIs that respond to > the SPARQL 1.1 RDF Dataset HTTP Protocol. +1 (in absentia) Note, however that this will beg the question about how Graph Store URLs are discovered or known apriori in order to POST to them (per the dataset protocol) > Please consider this email a "last call" on this topic -- if you have an > alternative proposal, now would be a good time to share it. > > Even if we do resolve this, we probably need to clarify the relationship > between Graph Stores and Datasets more, as Chime pointed out last week. (this is not meant to be an alternative proposal), however I tend to think of a graph store and dataset as differing only in that one is comprised of mathematical sets of graph edges and the other is a mutable resource that can be updated over the web or directly via the Update language. Disregarding mutability, there is an isomorphic correspondence between a graph store and a dataset in the sense that we want to be able to manipulate a graph store and have a SPARQL protocol instance managing a dataset comprised of the same RDF 'content' to respond with new answers to queries, for instance. -- Chime
Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2011 12:20:47 UTC