Re: Graph store protocol editor's draft updated

Seems like we are splitting hairs here.  See my response below.

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com> wrote:
>> The GSP document has the following explicit text (in section 4.2):
>>
>> "In a similar manner, a query component comprised of the string
>> default can be used to indicate that the operation indirectly
>> identifies the default graph in the Graph Store."
>
> My concern here is twofold. First, this is halfway through a document which is entirely focused on interacting with graph stores, and this is essentially the first time default graphs are discussed.

This document doesn't define what a graph store is, only how to
interact with it over HTTP.  Defining (precisely) what a default graph
is (or a Graph Store for that matter) is out of scope for this
document.

> Second, I didn't read this as "explicit text".

I don't think text any more 'explicit' than this is necessary or
constructive for what this document is specifying - for the reasons I
have stated above.

> Certainly not in the way Update deals with defining a graph store ("a Graph Store contains one (unnamed) slot holding a default graph and zero or more named slots holdingnamed graphs").

That is my point exactly.  *That* specification deals with the
definition of what a default graph is, *this* document builds on that
definition and provides a mechanism for interacting with them.

>> Were you looking for something else beyond this?
>
> Yes. I was expecting/hoping for a an actual definition of what the graphstore is.

This is in the Update specification (which this document has a
normative dependency on).

> The terminology section provides what looks like a definition, but it isn't all that specific, and doesn't mention default graphs at all.

The terminology section summarizes the externally provided definition
of what a graph store is (which includes the definition of what
comprises a graph store), cites the source, and the cited source is
listed as a normative reference.  I do not think anything more is
necessary.

> If the GSP is going to rely on the definition in Update, I think it should have some text to that affect, not just a citation link next to the (different) definition.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'different' definition.  Are you saying
the summary of the  external definition (clearly indicated with a
normative reference) is a poor summary? If so, can you suggest text
for a better summary?  If not, I do not see an issue here.

-- Chime

Received on Friday, 17 February 2012 15:12:16 UTC