Re: next steps on http graph store protocol

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

In the RDF case, shouldn't that be "PostMeansMerge"?


Received on Friday, 6 January 2012 20:12:41 UTC