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

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

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:38:27 -0400
Message-Id: <87680416-F324-437A-B37F-E4EF4A89582B@w3.org>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
To: kendall@monkeyfist.com


Le 05-10-17 à 16:32, Kendall Clark a écrit :
> 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.

Agreed see my previous mail.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Oct/ 
0042

>> 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.

Think about:
     Is there possibility of creating things in SPARQL Protocol that  
would contradict the way SPARQL Protocol operates or redefines the  
way it's working then leading to interoperability problems?
     Even if such behavior is acceptable with regards to SPARQL  
Protocol, how do you ensure interoperability between two  
implementations?
     etc.

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

That might be a good idea indeed.

Thanks for the time.

-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2005 18:38:38 GMT

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