Re: Kjeti;'s open comments

Thanks Andy,

I reformulated 2/ in the draft response and ask myself whether 
we should/could actually reopen discussion around 1/ 

best,
Axel

On 22 Mar 2011, at 11:48, Andy Seaborne wrote:

> 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 13:54:13 UTC