- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:59:26 +0000
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On 2012-01-10, at 14:12, Sandro Hawke wrote: > 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. Yes. I was using Caps to indicate a SPARQL 1.1 Graph Store, as opposed to just any "graph store". - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2012 15:02:47 UTC