CommentResponse:GR-dataset-protocol-general

see the following messages in the GR-1 and GR-2 thread:

• http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Feb/0006.html
• http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Feb/0011.html

Hi Gregg,

Thanks for clarifying your primary concerns with the draft specification. I've combined a few comments from your two most recent emails to focus on what seems to be the most substantive part of your feedback.

To summarize regarding the Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs, my

suggestions are

- Withdraw it on grounds that it just restates existing standards and thus amounts to more of a Guide than a standard; - If it isn't withdrawn, tighten up the language to clearly and consistently distinguish between references to syntax and semantics, and eliminate language suggesting a third component to denotational semantics

(e.g. eliminate the "graph" v. "graph content" distinction).

and

Aside from the issue of whether the Uniform HTTP

protocol is needed, I can now see exactly why we're having trouble understanding each other. We have two fundamental points of disagreement, one regarding the meaning of the term "RDF Graph" which you take to refer to 'abstract syntax', and which I take to refer to a graph (mathematical object), and one regarding the denotation of a graph URI, which you take to

be a concept distinct from the (its?) graph, and I take to be a graph.

In light of your comments, the Working Group discussed the status of this specification, which, in response to other feedback, is now called the SPARQL 1.1 RDF Dataset HTTP Protocol. The Working Group completed a requirements-gathering phase in the middle of 2009; as a result of that activity, the group was re-chartered with a set of concrete requirements. Among those chartered requirements is the definition of a "protocol to update RDF graphs using ReSTful methods". The Working Group felt then and still feels that defining the meaning of common HTTP operations against RDF graphs will aid in interoperability among deployed RDF datasets on the Web. At this time, the Working Group intends to continue with the publication of this specification.

Regarding your other comments, the Working Group believes that the specification is consistent with the meaning of RDF graph in the existing RDF specifications. Additionally, the specification reflects the definition of RDF datasets from the SPARQL 1.0 query specification (see http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/#rdfDataset). If you feel that this is not the case, we would appreciate it if you could point to specific text within the specification that conflicts with the existing definitions. Otherwise, the Working Group is not authorized or inclined to change definitions from existing specifications.

We would be grateful if you would acknowledge that your comment has been answered by sending a reply to this mailing list.