W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > March 2011

Re: [Graphs] Fwd: Comments on "SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs"

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:56:18 -0400
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1300481778.19413.24.camel@waldron>
On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 19:22 +0000, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 
> Is g-snap->g-text is just a function of the content type?

Well, probably, for our purposes, I think so.  

There's a trivial case where it's not: the  arbitrary non-semantic
variability in serialization, eg whitespace.  So, some notion of
equivalence class of g-texts may be important.

There's a related problem I don't know if we can or should address,
which is how to deal with websites which use cookies or other
information (IP address, browser sniffing, etc) to customize content.

Does AWWW deal with these at all?   Not that I recall.

For an RDF example, I could make it so http://hawke.org/ip returns
something like 
   
        { <> eg;currentClientIP "128.113.1.1" }
        
... but returning your actual IP address.  Given the right cloudhosting
infrastructure, I could meaningfully, and perhaps usefully, return two
different non-equivalent g-texts (ie g-texts for different g-snaps), at
the exactly same moment in time.

So, I think the model of web addresses identifying g-box which contains
one g-snap at any point in time is as good as REST, and probably good
enough, but still not perfect.

    -- Sandro
Received on Friday, 18 March 2011 20:56:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:04 UTC