Re: ACTION-4: Review SPARQL Graph Store Protocol and suggest how we should move forward with it from Andy Seaborne on 2012-09-21 (public-ldp-wg@w3.org from September 2012)

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:22:15 +0100
To: Steve K Speicher <sspeiche@us.ibm.com>
CC: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <505C23B7.4060103@epimorphics.com>

On 20/09/12 13:15, Steve K Speicher wrote:
>> Why not make LDBP for BPRs be simply a link to RFC 2616? + discussion
>> >that text/turtle be provided.  Then a plain HTTP server can be used to
>> >provide LDBP for BPRs (not BPCs).
>
> I confess, I am not following what you are proposing here.

The suggestion is that working with BPRs (not BPCs) is described by 
reference to RFC2616 (HTTP).  LDBP does not define anything more, or 
more rather defines as little as possible.

Test case: is the httpd server on my machine a BPR-server?  Currently it 
is not: it accepts prohibited data.

This related to our discussion on binary objects. (e.g. 4.1.2)

	Andy

Received on Friday, 21 September 2012 08:22:53 UTC