Re: next steps on http graph store protocol

On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 12:09 -0800, Gregory Williams wrote:
> 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"?

We debated that, but Eric and I, reading 2616 felt like it made sense to
name it after the class of resources called out in the spec, which uses
the term "append".   Of course, for RDF, Append means Merge, but we were
thinking the RDF case doesn't need it's own name for this.

    -- Sandro

Received on Friday, 6 January 2012 20:43:32 UTC