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

Re: Andy's review of the the protocol doc (part I)

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:35:17 +0100
Message-ID: <42F235B5.90801@hp.com>
To: kendall@monkeyfist.com
CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>



Kendall Clark wrote back very quickly:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 03:36:23PM +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
. . .

>>==== 3. query Fault Messages
>>
>>NB "3" - should be "4"
>>
>>It talks about 2 faults then lists 3.
> 
> 
> Really? I only see two faults: MalformedQuery, QueryRequestRefused.

Thelist (v1.56) is

     <xs:element name="malformed-query"></xs:element>
     <xs:element name="query-request-refused"></xs:element>
     <xs:element name="fault-details" type="xs:string"></xs:element>

which is 3 one of which is called "fault-details"

I think the list should be:

<fault name="MalformedQuery" element="st:faultDetails"/>
<fault name="QueryRequestRefused" element="st:faultDetails"/>


> 
> 
>>"malformed-query" and "query-request-refused" in the XML in the doc but 
>>"MalformedQuery" and "QueryRequestRefused" in the XSD and elsewhere.
> 
> 
> I have to clear this up; I think I did it because of different naming
> conventions, but it's probably a bug. Will fix.
> 
> 
>>Some blank lines in the XSD file would be nice.
>>
>>----
>>
>>"""
>>MalformedQuery
>>
>>This fault message must be returned when the SPARQL query string is not a 
>>legal sequence of characters in the language defined by the SPARQL grammar. 
>>(Other cases?)
>>"""
>>that could be argued to apply if you had a blank node fake URI <_:abcd> :-)
> 
> 
> Hmmm, not sure I understand yr point.

Just that <_:abcd> is illegal as an IRI.  This MalformedQuery does not allow 
much wiggle room for (non-standard) language extensions using the protocol.  A 
SPARQL Protocol service MUST bounce illegal queries so can't use the protocol 
with non-absolutely-correct-SPARQL queries which is what I though UMD wanted.

"legal sequence of characters" can be read as "legal by the grammar" or "legal 
by the grammar and any other rules that apply".


> 
> 
>>==== B. HTTP Bindings
>>"examples exemplify invocation"
>>examples usually do exemplify!
> 
> 
> Except when they don't. :>
> 
> Will tweak.
> 
> Thanks for the eyeball-time.

Thanks for the quick reply.

> 
> Cheers,
> Kendall Clark
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2005 15:35:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:24 GMT