Re: [rest-discuss] Re: The relation of Linked Data/Semantic Web to REST
- Bob Ferris wrote:
> Am 01.02.2011 01:12, schrieb Eric J. Bowman:HTTP != REST
>> Bob Ferris wrote:
>>> What about a SPARQL endpoint that supports HTTP POST for every method
>>> handling? So the SPARQL endpoint resource would be treated as the
>>> "parent" resource of all resource that are stored in the triple
>> REST has no concept of parent/child resources, particularly inferred
>> from URIs. Such relationships are established explicitly, through
>> linking. The problem with using POST for query submission, is that it
>> violates the Identification of Resources constraint -- query results
>> are resources of interest, so they need URIs.
> To speak in RFC2616 conform terms with the 'parent/child' relation I
> mean 'subordinate' (cf. "The posted entity is subordinate to that URI inthat's been cleared up by:
> the same way that a file is subordinate to a directory containing it"
> ). Redirecting to a cachable result should be allowed, or?Yes, ironically that's what the "303 See Other" status was originally
intended for ;)
"This method exists primarily to allow the output of a
POST-activated script to redirect the user agent to a selected
Further, it's worth noting that you can simply 200 OK in reply to a
POST with a Content-Location containing a URI (different to the
effective request uri) and that signifies that the representation
included in the response is a representation of some other resource,
identified by the URI in the Content-Location.
- On 2 February 2011 15:40, Eric J. Bowman <eric@...> wrote:
> Danny Ayers wrote:Oops again, sorry, it was never like this with the telegraph...
>> [oops, I meant to send this to the list, that yahoo interface is
> Note that you're also quoting me, not Bob...
Let's take this to a new
> thread, shall we?Although I'd like to hear your opinion on how SPARQL endpoints aren't
RESTful, I haven't really got anything to add on that aspect.