- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:28:47 -0400
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On Sep 19, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > > Dear RDF Data Access Working Group, > > From http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-rdf-sparql-protocol-20060406/ > it is > not really clear to me why POSTing application/sparql-query > documents to > the service is a bad thing. That seems to be the most obvious modus of > operation, or at least more obvious than the hypothetical application/ > xml format cited in the specification. Could a rationale for this > design > be included in the document? That text appears in an informative section of the document only (all the examples are marked as informative), so there is no implication whatever that posting SPARQL syntax docs is "a bad thing". There are several features or aspects of several examples that are not necessarily specified but are given so as to make the examples more realistic, or more reflective of best practice, etc. None of those are discussed explicitly because they are not germane to the specification normative sections. Cheers, Kendall
Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 18:27:50 UTC