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 11:05:02 -0400
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Cc: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20051024150502.GJ28452@monkeyfist.com>

On 15:40, Mon 24 Oct 05, Seaborne, Andy wrote:

> That's better - the question is who's made the mistake in this situation. 

I don't believe that's the question *in general*, since there are cases
where QueryRequestRefused will be returned where there is no error at all:

   This fault message must be returned when a client submits a request that
   the server is unable or unwilling to process, perhaps because of resource
   consumption or other policy considerations. The QueryRequestRefused fault
   message does not indicate whether the server may or may not process a
   subsequent, identical request or requests.

> A related, but different issue, is what to do about other HTTP return codes 
> such as 401 (Unauthorized), 402, 403 -- it would seem appropriate to 
> reflect these like any other use of HTTP but, as I read the spec, a 
> compliant service should not return unlisted error codes.

In my first protocol draft, I tried to define several SPARQL errors or
warnings or conditions, mapping them to HTTP return codes. That seemed not
to get WG consensus, so we swerved back to a more minimalist set of 2
conditions only. I think it's reasonable to define a few more. :>

Cheers, 
Kendall
--
Sad songs and waltzes aren't selling this year... --Cake
Received on Monday, 24 October 2005 15:07:32 GMT

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