Re: next steps on http graph store protocol

On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 13:47 +0000, Steve Harris wrote:
> On 2012-01-10, at 13:24, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> …
> > It sounds like where we actually disagree is about the scope of
> > applicability of this spec.
> Yes.
> > If I understand how you're approaching the situation, maybe you'd be
> > okay with the following text in Graph Store HTTP Protocol.   This text
> > would probably go in the introduction, with its first sentence in the
> > abstract:
> > 
> >        This protocol is only one of many possible HTTP (REST) protocols
> >        one could use involving RDF payloads and RDF Graph Resources.
> >        This specification only applies to one particular sort of RDF
> >        graph storage system, the sort for which these operations are
> >        the appropriate ones.  In contrast, for example, if one wanted a
> >        Graph Store which also included some service components, where
> >        POST was used to invoke operations, one would need to use a
> >        different Graph Store HTTP Protocol and the constraints of this
> >        document would not apply.
> Seems tautological to me, but as you disagree it's clearly not.
> If you have a Graph Store - use the Graph Store Protocol. If you don't have a Graph Store (e.g. IBM) then use something else. Seems self evident.
> In other words, I'd be OK with the quoted text above, though I'm not sure "one would need to use a different Graph Store HTTP Protocol" makes sense, as the thing in question wouldn't be a Graph Store, by definition would it?

It wouldn't be a "SPARQL 1.1 Graph Store", true.   I think these future
RDF graph storage systems that also provide some services ought to be
able to call themselves "graph stores" and/or "Graph Stores".    Perhaps
we could use a phrase like, "in this document, the term 'Graph Store'
means a SPARQL 1.1 Graph Store", and that would suffice.


> - Steve

Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2012 14:12:38 UTC