W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Proposal: register /.well-known/sparql with IANA

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 17:10:49 +0000
Message-ID: <50D5E999.90407@epimorphics.com>
To: semantic-web@w3.org


On 22/12/12 16:25, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
> On 22 December 2012 15:41, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com
> <mailto:david@3roundstones.com>> wrote:
>
> On Dec 22, 2012, at 08:57, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com
> <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> May I propose that we register the well known address
>>
>> /.well-known/sparql
>>
>> with IANA.
>>
>> This could be a sparql endpoint for the domain queried,

Domains don't necessarily have one SPARQL endpoint.

> and a helpful shortcut for both web based discovery, and also write
> operations via sparql update.

Please do not conflate query and update.  It is one choice to put them
at the same URI but, for integration in security architectures based on
URI, not always a good choice.  SPARQL Query and SPARQL Update are
different.  Registering as if they are the same, even if voluntary
usage, seems to be encouraging a somewhat dubious choice.

>
>
> +1.  Now, who is "we"?
>
>
> Some comments from michael hausenblas:
>
> [[ Very simple, though not exactly quick ;)
>
> Just send to wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org
> <mailto:wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org> following [1].
>
> However, note that the SPARQL WG pushed back when I suggested it:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Jun/0000.html
>
>  Cheers, Michael
>
> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5785#section-5.1.1 ]]
>
> So I think anyone register this, if there's interest, it would
> probably just need to reopen the conversation with the sparql wg mail
> list, I think.

Actually, that thread also asked some questions which still seem valid.

That conversation didn't propose what information to put there.

RFC 5785 suggests:

[[
the well-known URI space was created with the expectation
    that it will be used to make site-wide policy information and other
    metadata available directly (if sufficiently concise), or provide
    references to other URIs that provide such metadata.
]]

so surely it should be some kind of domain map at /.well-known/sparql
(the collection of all service descriptions of endpoints available 
maybe?)  Or just a list of endpoints (co0ncise) - you can pull the 
service descriptions from the endpoints themselves - that suggests using 
sitemaps to me.

A response to the question about discovery by indexing service 
descriptions would also be good.  Generally, I worry about building 
architecture (a fixed name is architecture); it's tempting but is it 
necessary?

A question I'd add is about suitability of / root URIs.  It's not always
possible to put content there (e.g. hosting; integration into a larger
application).  The sitemap protocol addresses this.

	Andy

>
>
> Regards, Dave -- http://about.me/david_wood
>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 22 December 2012 17:11:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:31 UTC