W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sparql-12@w3.org > January 2020

Re: Conditional Requests to resolve semaphore and confidentiality concerns

From: james anderson <james@dydra.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 22:38:17 +0000
Message-ID: <0102016fb081d822-bebcc696-d9f6-4af3-a78a-2e0623af27dc-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>
To: "SPARQL 1.2 Community Group" <public-sparql-12@w3.org>

> On 2020-01-16, at 22:48:21, Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net> wrote:
> On torsdag 16. januar 2020 19:20:55 CET james anderson wrote:
>> the suggestion here does not convince any more than #60 did then.
> OK!
>> as per the comment from 19.june, it remains, that the application which is
>> not prepared to model the meta-state and attempts to divine it from the
>> incidental store state will have no way to guarantee integrity. 
> Admittedly, I do not understand your objection very well. In particular, I'm 
> not sure what you mean by meta-state, and therefore, I'm not sure how to 
> translate that requirement to the Web world. 

in this case, the meta-state is whether the store is in a state in which it is to be permitted that a given process modify it.

> The little I know about meta-states consider N processors that have to 
> communicate with each other to maintain a common state over all processors. 
> If that is what you mean by model meta-state, could you please explain how 
> that could be done on the Web with N>1000 autonomous agents that can be in 
> hundreds of states, possibly lie about their state, possibly suddenly get new 
> states that they can be in, and communicate over HTTP?

modulo clients which "possibly lie about their stateā€, that is the base use-case for a crdt.

best regards, from berlin,
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2020 22:38:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:26:46 UTC