W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > January 2006

Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL: Error handling

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:16:57 -0500
Message-Id: <78B2DF91-11C8-493C-B5E8-2ACF4703900A@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>


On Jan 30, 2006, at 8:50 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:

>> The spec says that in the case of a syntax error, the MalformedQuery
>> fault should be returned.
>
> That's not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for the text
> that follows from this WG decision:
>
> "for queries that are not SPARQL Query Strings, you should return
> MalformedQuery and you must not return 2xx"
>  -- http://www.w3.org/2005/08/16-dawg-minutes#item04

Well, it used to say "must not return 2xx", but, as you pointed out,  
that's a bad leakage from the concrete into the abstract.

What did we *mean* when we said "must not return 2xx"? Did we mean  
"must not return Out Message"? I didn't mean that. What did others  
mean? I have no idea. As I recall the discussion, you threw that in  
at the last minute, just before we took the vote. That's neither good  
nor bad, but I've never been entirely comfortable with that decision.

And, as I've said many times, it's redundant by implication of the  
fault propagation rule.

>> Is the relevant language insufficient as it stands?
>
> Yes; that doesn't say that Out Message *MUST NOT* be returned
> in the case of a syntax error.

The latest version says that. But, honestly, I have no idea whether  
that's what the WG wanted. This feels a bit strong-armed to me, just  
like it did when we took the original decision.

Cheers,
Kendall
--
You're part of the human race
All of the stars and the outer space
Part of the system again
Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 14:17:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:50 GMT