Re: next steps on http graph store protocol

On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 14:38 +0000, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 
> On 10/01/12 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.
> 
> We already formally define Graph Store (in update section 4.1.1).  I 
> think that, plus the first line of the intro, plus the title is quite 
> clear.  (Can we make the Graph Store in the intro a link please?)
> 
> Bringing in an undefined concept "RDF Graph Resources" is confusing.
> 
> We do agree on "POST was used to invoke operations" (except the 'was' as 
> it's really speculative future!).  It is invoke operations; services 
> react to messages.

So you agree with the meaning of my proposed text, you just don't want
it there because (like Steve) you think it's redundant?

To me, the first sentence of the abstract:

        This document describes the use of HTTP operations for the
        purpose of managing a collection of RDF graphs in the REST
        architectural style.
        
... has an obvious reading, for a W3C Recommendation, which is that this
spec is *the* recommended way to RESTfully manage a collection of RDF
graphs.

   - Sandro 

> >
> >      -s
> >
> >
> >> - Steve
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2012 15:06:54 UTC