- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 21:46:22 +0100
- To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
ok for me, so. thanks for the clarification. best, Axel On 5 Dec 2011, at 13:29, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > On 12/4/2011 6:48 PM, Gregory Williams wrote: > > On Dec 4, 2011, at 2:59 PM, Axel Polleres wrote: > > > >> Hi Lee, Greg, > >> > >> While the draft answer is sure ok formally, would there be any hint we could give him how to > >> solve his use case differently (without OPTIONS) in compliance with SD, i.e. is there anything > >> we could offer for his scenario: > >> > >>> Rather than having a single endpoint for querying, each graph URI is > >>> its own endpoint. > >> > >> ? > > > > I think the answer is obvious, he just doesn't want to do it. He says, "I don't want to pollute GET requests to [the resource] with SD triples." While perhaps useful, I think this pattern of his of combining a document/graph/endpoint is dubious when it comes to the proper interpretation of what the resource actually *is* (and therefore what the proper response should be to any given request). > > Agreed. > > Lee > > > > > .greg > > > > >
Received on Monday, 5 December 2011 20:47:06 UTC