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

Re: SPARQL Protocol Spec Examples

From: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 20:30:29 +0000
Message-ID: <436BC4E5.20208@ldodds.com>
To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org

Kendall Clark wrote:

>> 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.

OK, a misunderstanding on my part on how WSDL works.

However I still think its worth defining the format(s) in which
faults will be returned otherwise a client won't be able to
reliably extract an error message: will it be the complete response 
body, within some arbitrary XML structure, embedded somewhere in an 
(X)HTML document?

While the types in the spec may be used abstractly in the WSDL, I
don't think there reason not to mandate them as the preferred format
for the error message.

Cheers,

L.
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 20:30:43 GMT

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