W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > July 2012

Re: CONSTRUCTing illegal triples should be optional

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 21:33:40 +0100
Message-ID: <50184124.5010008@epimorphics.com>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
CC: public-rdf-dawg-comments <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>


On 31/07/12 20:41, David Booth wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 18:39 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>
>> On 31/07/12 18:00, David Booth wrote:
>>> Hi Andy,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your response.  I am not satisfied with this resolution.
>>> I see no harm that would be created by the simple wording change that
>>> I proposed -- NO implementation would have to change -- and I do see
>>> harm in the current wording.
>>
>> An implementation of an RDF system capable of receiving results from a
>> SPARQL 1.0 engine would have to change to work with the same query in
>> the loose SPARQL 1.1 implementation.  It would require at least a new
>> and specialised parser.
>
> No it wouldn't.  SPARQL 1.0 engines are not currently required to accept
> malformed RDF, nor are they required to accept RDF with malformed
> xsd:datetimes.  This would not change.  They could still reject such
> malformed input.

Client side.

A client issues a CONSTRUCT query string to an engine, and get back RDF 
which it parses.

If it switches to a different query service, or the service is upgraded, 
even with the same legal SPARQL 1.0 query and same data, the client 
starts to get back not-RDF it breaks with a parse error (or some other 
failure such as no conneg).

...

> Anyway, based on the above new information, I'll revoke my objection.  I
> am satisfied with this resolution.

Noted.

	Andy

>
> Thanks!
> David
>
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2012 20:34:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 31 July 2012 20:34:09 GMT