- From: james anderson <james@dydra.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 22:38:17 +0000
- 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