[Mulgara-dev] SPARQL handling of POSTed file uploads

[Andy Seaborne]

On 30/12/10 17:56, Paul Gearon wrote:
>>> I disagree. It has a very specific meaning, and the W3C are trying to
>>> >>  be careful to use it correctly. Knowledge is referring to the
>>> >>  information that the RDF is encoding, without any reference to how it
>>> >>  is encoded. It may be RDF/XML, JSON, N3, or one of several other
>>> >>  formats. Some of those formats may require significant transformation
>>> >>  to derive the "triples" that forms the basis of RDF. Referring to
>>> >>  "triples" also tends to imply N3, which they are trying to avoid here.
>> >
>> >  I agreed with Gregg - a standard protocol is about bytes-on-the-wire and
>> >  changes in state that two systems have to agree on.  How you think out the
>> >  meaning of that state is irrelevant to a standard otherwise you get the
>> >  situation where two systems can address on the bytes and state changes, so
>> >  they work together perfectly well and you can not observe disagreement, but
>> >  if they disagree on the natural language above that do they not comply with
>> >  the standard?
> So are you saying that building on HTTP means that it's not a
> protocol? Or is it the fact that the payload representing some
> information, but not stating anything about how the information is
> represented makes it too abstract to be called a protocol?

I don't think a protocol can talk about knowledge.

The number 1 is knowledge in the right context.   But the context is not 
part of the protocol.

> It's certainly not a protocol along the lines of HTTP or ASN, but I
> thought it still had some use.
>
>>>> >>>     Sentences
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>  like  "However, in using a URI in this way, we are not directly
>>>> >>>  identifying
>>>> >>>  an RDF graph but rather the RDF knowledge that is represented by an RDF
>>>> >>>  document, which serializes that graph." make my eyeballs hurt. To me it
>>>> >>>  reads like bad amateur philosophizing - note the logical
>>>> >>>  incoherence.
>>> >>
>>> >>  I agree that it makes for painful reading, but it's done for a purpose.
>> >
>> >  I'd say it's arguable whether it's even right.  A URI names a resource (by
>> >  AWWW).  Is the resource "RDF knowledge"? (I refuse to use the terms without
>> >  quotes.) Is an image of a cat knowledge about the cat?
> I believe so, yes. It's knowledge about how the cat may appear in an image.

To a human maybe.  Cats don't recognize themselves in pictures so it's 
not knowledge from a cat's point of view.  It's a picture, that's all.

(Actually, I think some cats have be rcorded recognizing themselves but 
it certainly isn't universal in cats).

>>>> >>>  Actually I'd
>>>> >>>  go further and drop the reference to SPARQL, and just call it something
>>>> >>>  like
>>>> >>>  "RDF Resource Management Protocols".
>>> >>
>>> >>  I get your point, but remember that the "P" in SPARQL stands for
>>> >>  "Protocol". The document is about a protocol, so it gets published as
>>> >>  part of the SPARQL spec.
>> >
>> >  I don't like the use of "Management" because I think a useful aspect is GET
>> >  which isn't very management-y.  "management" to me suggests changes that
>> >  involve changes in the store but not directly sending and receiving data.
> I agree.
>
> I also think that real management requires more functionality than
> this document describes. You*could*  do management with these
> operations, but you'd be operating with one hand tied behind your
> back. So on both points I think that the word "management" is
> inappropriate. I suppose I hadn't thought about it too much before
> now. Should I mention it, or is it a little late in the process?

It's not too late.

We're not even in Last Call yet, nor has the WG has resolved to publish 
so you, as WG member, haven't been asked "yea" or "nay" yet.

Mention it now, or at least soon.

	Andy