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

Re: [comments] SPARQL Protocol against QA SpecGL ICS [OK?]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:39:32 -0500
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1129239572.28805.803.camel@dirk>

On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 21:37 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote:
> So you see, you said yourself that the material is here.
> I would say that it could be a little bit more explicit and  
> introduced with a proper conformance section, labeled as such. I  
> think it would make the life of developers easier.

So this is an editorial matter.

Kendall, I'm interested to know if you're persuaded to change
the way the conformance material is organized.

> > The QA document says "Formalizing the position of the Working Group  
> > in a
> > clearly defined section and prose removes ambiguities for the
> > specification users about the possibility of developing extensions or
> > not" which presumes that there are ambiguities to be removed.
> > We are not aware of any ambiguities. If you find some, feel
> > free to point them out. Until then, I hope you'll agree
> > that the document does address extensibility as much as is
> > warranted.
> I have read the document and I still don't know if it's possible to  
> create an extension or not. It's what the term "Formalizing" means  
> here. It means say it explicitly yes and no to remove any ambiguities.

The SPARQL protocol doesn't introduce any extension mechanisms,
but it is layered on various extensible technologies.
To say simply "It is not possible create an extension
of the SPARQL protocol" would introduce more ambiguities than
it would remove, I think. Some might read that as saying that
a SPARQL service cannot export other WSDL interfaces, or that the
HTTP protocol cannot be extended with new methods, or that no new
RDF class/property URIs may be introduced into the web, or
that no new URI schemes may be introduced into the web.

If you have specific suggested text, we'll certainly consider it.

Or if you have a test case (sketch) that shows some possible
extension that you have in mind that isn't already addressed
by the specification (directly or indirectly via cited specs)
we'll certainly look into that.

Kendall, does any text regarding extensibility come to mind?

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2005 21:39:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:06 UTC