W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: protocol editor's draft: 1.53

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:49:52 -0400
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050727214952.GB23578@monkeyfist.com>

On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 04:45:54PM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:

> We just recently got a comment about that...
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Jul/0061.html
> Would you please respond to it?

I did, offline, this morning, but, yes, I'll respond publicly tonight or

> That's at least progress on...
> ACTION KendallC: add POST binding to protocol doc
> I'll probably double-check later to see whether it's
> in progress or completely done.

In progress.

> > - added semantics for malformed query fault, though I believe this may be
> >   incomplete as spec'd currently
> Hmm... I hope somebody gets inspired to do some protocol
> test infrastructure work soonish.

Well, yes, but I meant something different. I meant that in the text at
hand, I said that a MalformedQuery fault must be returned when, basically,
the query is illegal. I'm wondering if it should be returned in any *other*
cases? Like problems with RDF dataset, say.

> The only action I see that you didn't make at least some
> progress on is...
> ACTION KendallC: Check whether the results namespace is in protocol
> draft; if so, update.

Ah, yes, thanks. What did we decide for the results namespace after all?

Kendall Clark
Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2005 21:51:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:48 UTC