Re: next steps on http graph store protocol

On 09/01/12 23:55, Sandro Hawke wrote:
...
> It's not the lexical similarity that makes me think they should be
> governed by the same protocol document, it's that similarity in the
> protocol.   For both graph1 and magicCollectionThing, everything in the
> protocol is the same except the behavior on POST.   GET, PUT, DELETE,
> and PATCH, for RDF content types, all the same.   They just different in
> how they handle POST of RDF.  So, (1) it seems odd to have two W3C
> Recommendations that differ in only one small part, and (2) I'd think it
> would cause lots of market confusion, as people didn't understand which
> of those documents they were supposed to be using.   Especially since
> the second one doesn't exist yet, and the first one doesn't acknowledge
> that the second one might, someday.  So as people try to do the second
> one, many people will be unhappy, I predict, that they are, apparently,
> violating the first one.  What I want is for the first one to admit the
> possibility of the second one, explicitly.

Sandro,

Does this mean that the charter for the Linked Data Patterns WG will 
include a requirement to use the graph store protocol?  Because if it 
does not (and I don't expect it would), then we are in grave danger of 
designing for a situation that will never arise.

 Andy

Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2012 08:52:25 UTC