- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 12:09:43 -0800
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Jan 6, 2012, at 11:50 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote: > As I understand it, the potentially-blocking issues are: > > 1. I want to make sure it's okay to have some resources which are > subject to this protocol (with people doing GET and PUT of RDF to them), > for which POST does not mean "please merge". I believe we have > consensus on this, framing it as some resources have this behavior and > some don't. Eric is suggesting we name this class, so that people can > express in RDF whether a resource is this kind of resource. (When he > and I brainstormed about this, I think our best suggestion for the URI > was http://www.w3.org/2012/http/PostMeansAppend. In the RDF case, shouldn't that be "PostMeansMerge"? .greg
Received on Friday, 6 January 2012 20:12:41 UTC