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

Re: rq23 conformance section

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 14:32:41 -0500
Message-Id: <4b1dcec6887f137f89ccc31be086d709@w3.org>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>


On Nov 19, 2005, at 1:45 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 12:49:54PM -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 11:39 -0500, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>>> [[
>>> The grammar in appendix A defines the syntax of SPARQL Queries.
>>
>> SPARQL Query strings, no?
>>
>> (broken link to "grammar", btw")
>>
>>>  Apart
>>> from extension functions, the semantics of all SPARQL Queries are
>>> defined within this document. A query is successful if it has been
>>> processed in accordance with the semantics defined in this
>>> specification and the semantics specified for any invoked extension
>>> functions.
>>
>> I don't see why introduce a notion of "successful"; it's clearly
>> not a property of queries. The same query might be "successful"
>> in one case and not in another.
>
> This definition of query sounds more like a query string. SPARQL
> queries have semantics and results. Success/failure seems implicit
> in that.

Nothing about semantics nor results depends on how it's processed.
2+2 is 4 whether your calculator is working or not.

We have a definition of SPARQL query
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#defn_SPARQLquery
and results
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#defn_ResultForm

I can only see 2 notions of 'successful': one that's totally redundant
w.r.t. those 2 definitions, and one that relates an implementation
or an execution of a query, which is out of the scope we have
established for the QL spec.

> If someone writes a SPARQL Query over SMTP protocol, they MUST
> create tell the requestor if the query succeeded. SPARQL Protocol
> uses the SPARQL Query Results Format but I don't expect all APIs
> and protocols will.

All APIs are either concrete versions of our abstract protocol, or 
they're out of scope.
The protocol is specified in terms of the results format schema, but 
you can
take that as an abstract definition of what comes back. Or you could 
propose
that we add some 'or equivalent expression' language to the protocol 
document.


>  I think success/failure is a reasonable low
> bar for conformance.
>
>> I think this should do:
>>
>>
>>   B. Conformance
>>
>>   See appendix A grammar regarding conformance of _SPARQL
>>   Query strings_, and section 10 Query Result Forms for
>>   conformance of query results. See appendix E. Internet Media Type
>>   for conformance to the application/sparql-query media type.
>>
>>   This specification is intended for use in conjuction with
>>   the SPARQL Protocol[SPROT] and the
>>   SPARQL Query Results XML Format[RESULTS]. See those specifications
>>   for their conformance criteria.
>
> I'd much prefer that this conformance section be relevent to folks
> developing APIs (which I expect to be numerous) and protocols (which
> will probably be less numerous).

Why?

In earlier discussions, we have talked about how APIs and command-line
interfaces are isomorphic to our WSDL abstract protocol. Why
the switch now?

>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#conformance
>>>



-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Saturday, 19 November 2005 19:32:43 GMT

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