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

Re: more HTTP status code in SPARQL protocol spec

From: manuelso <manuelso@stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:19:17 -0700
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <7B7E98F1-B668-4DEC-A94E-FBB29CA42277@stanford.edu>
To: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
Hi Chimezie,

Somehow your response got lost in my inbox.

.... your response replied my initial question.

Thanks

Manuel

On Jun 5, 2012, at 5:55 AM, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote:

> Manuel, thanks for your comment.  Please see the response below.
> 
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:57 PM, manuelso <manuelso@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Most triple stores in some way or another have to deal with complex queries that cannot be resolved or just partially resolved.
> 
>> I just had a look at
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-sparql11-http-rdf-update-20120501/#status-codes
> 
>> I think that section 5.1 can be extended with the following status codes:
> 
>> Partial Content 206
>> (partial content is returned by query, but this is not a complete result)
> 
>> Request Time out 408
>> (no able to generate any results in the given time or to process the query)
> 
>> Request Entity Too large 413
>> (when the query is too expensive to be processed)
> 
> After discussing your comment, the Working Group doesn't think the
> suggested codes are appropriate for the situations you describe. For
> example, Partial Content 206 is meant for response to a byte range
> operation that specifies a single range of bytes to address within the
> entity which does not readily translate to the situation in this
> protocol where the entity is a sequence of bytes in an RDF document.
> 
> However, we have attempted to clarify that *any* HTTP status code can
> be used as long as it makes sense to do so per [RFC 2616]. The current
> specification says (in 5.1 Status Codes):
> 
> "implementations MUST include a status code [RFC2616] appropriate for
> the operation indicated and the result from invoking the operation"
> 
> We have updated that section (in the editor's draft [1]) with text
> from the SPARQL protocol, so it reads:
> 
> "Implementations MUST use the response status codes defined in HTTP
> [RFC2616] to indicate the success or failure of an operation.
> Developers should consult the HTTP specification [RFC2616] for
> detailed definitions of each status code."
> 
> We would be grateful if you would acknowledge that your comments have
> been answered by sending a reply to this mailing list.
> 
> Regards, Chimezie Ogbuji, on behalf of the SPARQL WG.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/http-rdf-update/#status-codes
Received on Monday, 18 June 2012 23:20:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 18 June 2012 23:20:29 GMT