W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > November 2005

Re: SPARQL Protocol Spec Examples

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 17:31:09 -0500
Message-Id: <75A06545-F9AE-4C41-BE72-430D47379B2D@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
To: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>


On Nov 3, 2005, at 5:18 PM, Leigh Dodds wrote:

>
> Kendall Clark wrote:
>
>>> Secondly, I think it would be useful if the fault examples
>>> demonstrated the use of the malformed-query and
>>> query-request-refused. The first example returns plain-text,
>>> the second an HTML document.
>> I'm not sure what you mean here.
>>> For consistency, i.e. always returning XML, I think it would be
>>> nicer if faults MUST return one of those elements and SHOULD include
>>> a human-readable error message.
>> I'm not sure what you mean here, either. Can you explain, or  
>> better,  show me an HTTP response that looks like what you're  
>> suggesting?
>
> OK. Section 2.1.4 query Fault Messages includes some XSD that defines
> two elements: malformed-query and query-request-refused.
>
> Which lead me to expect this kind of HTTP response for a
> request with an incorrect query (adapted from 2.2.1.9):
>
> HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 12:48:25 GMT
> Server: Apache/1.3.29 (Unix) PHP/4.3.4 DAV/1.0.3
> Connection: close
> Content-Type: application/xml
>
> <malformed-query xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/09/sparql-protocol- 
> types/#">
> 4:syntax error, unexpected ORDER, expecting '}'
> </malformed-query>

No. I don't believe that's the way WSDL works, necessarily. WSDL 2  
uses XSD to define types, abstractly. There is XSD for the In Message  
of our query operation which is never serialized as literal XML  
corresponding to the abstract types we declare.

The actual serialization of those faults is exhausted by the HTTP  
binding & response code.

I hope that helps explain things.

Cheers,
Kendall
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2005 22:31:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:49 GMT