W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Why does rdf-sparql-protocol say to return 500 when refusing a query?

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 12:37:51 +0100
Cc: public-lod@w3.org, Alexander Dutton <alexander.dutton@oucs.ox.ac.uk>, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, dcharbon@us.ibm.com
Message-Id: <9F8FF193-BA40-45A2-9259-21E5BEB89FA6@cyganiak.de>
To: Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>
On 28 Apr 2011, at 11:26, Leigh Dodds wrote:
> However it may be useful to define a standard response format and
> potentially error messages to help client apps/users distinguish
> between more fine-grained error states. I suggested this during
> discussion of the original protocol specification but the WG decided
> it wasn't warranted initially [1]. Based on this discussion I'm not
> sure implementation experience has moved on enough, or converged
> enough to feed this back as part of SPARQL 1.1.

I raised this issue again with the SPARQL WG last year:

Original message:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Sep/0002.html

Replies start here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Oct/index.html

The thread pretty much covers the entire design space and elicited lots of good (and bad) arguments.

My takeaway, after surveying 141 public SPARQL endpoints, is that the most interoperable option is to serve SPARQL error messages as a text/plain one-liner.

Also, none of the editors of the SPARQL 1.1 Protocol document felt it necessary to contribute to the thread, despite it running for a week and concrete text changes to the specs being proposed. I take this to indicate that making the Protocol more interoperable is unfortunately rather low on their list of priorities :-(

Best,
Richard
Received on Thursday, 28 April 2011 11:38:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:32 UTC