- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 11:48:50 +0000
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- CC: sparQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
Keeping to what we can address in documents is the right way to go. Couple of comments: 1/ Maybe calling it the "SPARQL 1.1 RDF Graph Store Protocol" would, with hindsight, be better. 2/ "subset of the SPARQL protocol" - I found that misleading. I know what you mean - it's a subset of the capabilities - but the way it's invoked is completely different (it's not a POST of a form or a POST of a SPARQL Update script) as you go on to say. Maybe say that it's documenting (not specifying) how a RESTful style is applied, and that the only definition is POST=>append triples and indirect naming. Andy On 22/03/11 11:13, Axel Polleres wrote: > Hi all, > > I started to draft a response to Kjetil's open comments. > My general rationale here is that - despite the ongoing discussions on other lists - I think that > the rationale of the SPARQL 1.1 RDF Dataset HTTP Protocol document is merely to provide a RESTful > version of a subset of the SPARQL protocol, i.e. to provide some more direct acceess to a > SPARQL endpoints directly via HTTP operations. > > Anything beyond that is IMO beyond our WG's charter (that's particular on Kjetil's last comment, but I tried to address all his open comments now...) > > Along these lines, I drafted the following response: > > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:KK-12 > > this still has two open TODO's which I'd kindly ask Chime to have a look. > > best, > Axel > >
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2011 11:49:28 UTC