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

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

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:32:53 -0400
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <20051017203253.GH5438@monkeyfist.com>

On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 04:39:32PM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> 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.

Not especially, no. Though I guess I can see some utility in a short
conformance section, explicitly labelled as such, though I would likely just
cut and paste the text that you cited earlier.

> > 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.

You have to know a little something about WSDL. I suppose this is too
implicit.

I can't find it just this minute, and I'm writing this email too quickly,
but there is language somewhere...Ah, here:

  A SPARQL Protocol service may support other interfaces.

That's our "extensibility mechanism" inasmuch as we have one. But it's not
*really* an extensibility mechanism, it's just an implication of WSDL.

> 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.

Yes. The doc says, above, that you may support other interfaces and still be
a compliant service. I'm not sure how to highlight that in an extensibility
section except to repeat it. Though perhaps that's just exactly what should
be done.

I'll think some more about this.

> If you have specific suggested text, we'll certainly consider it.
> 
> Kendall, does any text regarding extensibility come to mind?

I'll think about it. There might be some WSDL 2.0 text I could cite,
reiterating the point above.

Kendall
Received on Monday, 17 October 2005 20:35:16 GMT

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