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

Re: SPARQL Protocol Test Suite Update

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:21:54 -0400
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Cc: Elias Torres <eliast@us.ibm.com>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20051024132154.GA28452@monkeyfist.com>

On 13:29, Mon 24 Oct 05, Seaborne, Andy wrote:

> == "select-refused"
> 
> Not sure why the query is to be refused.
> 
> I'd return a 400 (BAD REQUEST) if query is sent that the (mythical) service 
> description had said it was not supported in some way (e.g. described 
> dataset but the service only has a fixed dataset).  It is not a server 
> error if the client sends a request the server has said it can't handle.

This is *really* a comment against the protocol spec, isn't it? One I've
heard from and discussed with Steve a long time ago (well, relatively
speaking), and one we discussed during the telcon on IRC last week.

I won't repeat that discussion (for the 3rd time) here; suffice to say, for
now, I'm not convinced. The 5xx error series is *not* for server "errors"
only. The first sentence of 10.5 Server Error 5xx says, quite plainly,
"Response status codes beginning with the digit "5" indicate cases in which
the server is aware that it has erred or is incapable of performing the
request." I take "unwilling" to be a special case of "incapable". While the
spec presently says QueryRequestRefused is to be bound to 500, I'd be happy
with it returning 501. 

Cheers, 
Kendall
--
Sad songs and waltzes aren't selling this year... --Cake
Received on Monday, 24 October 2005 13:24:27 GMT

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