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

Re: SPARQL Protocol: application/sparql-query requests

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:54:10 -0400
Message-Id: <2788F275-4F8E-4968-9C77-3F5E8B754FC5@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>


On Sep 19, 2006, at 2:43 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

> * Kendall Clark wrote:
>> That text appears in an informative section of the document only (all
>> the examples are marked as informative), so
>> there is no implication whatever that posting SPARQL syntax docs is
>> "a bad thing".
>>
>> There are several features or aspects of several examples that are
>> not necessarily specified but are given so as to
>> make the examples more realistic, or more reflective of best
>> practice, etc. None of those are discussed explicitly
>> because they are not germane to the specification normative sections.
>
> I don't understand your response. I did not cite any specific text or
> example of the specification; I am asking why using

Well, I didn't really understand your initial comment, so mine at  
least got you to elaborate...

> yet more precise, why
>
>    <operation ref="tns:query" wsdlx:safe="true" whttp:method="POST"
>       whttp:inputSerialization="application/x-www-form-urlencoded,
>                                 application/xml" ...
>
> and not
>
>    <operation ref="tns:query" wsdlx:safe="true" whttp:method="POST"
>       whttp:inputSerialization="application/x-www-form-urlencoded,
>                                 application/sparql-query,
>                                 application/xml" ...

That's a good question; it may just be an oversight. I will have to  
look at some history or ask the WG what it thinks.

My suspicion is that we only *need* the application/x-www-form- 
urlencoded input serialization type and, rather than adding  
application/sparql-query, we may drop the application/xml bit.

But I'll send a better answer when I have one.

Cheers,
Kendall
Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 18:53:18 GMT

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