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: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 16:30:18 -0600
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1132525819.26034.17.camel@dirk>

On Sun, 2005-11-20 at 05:47 -0500, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 09:15:51PM -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Out of scope for the WG or the QL? Care to back that up?
> > 
> > Out of the scope that the WG decided, by going to last call,
> > that the spec would cover. Again, we discussed rearranging this
> > conformance text as an editorial change, not a design change.
> 
> Yeah, I said "I think I can" and I think I came up with a better
> plan. If the issue is proceedural, then I can remove the text for
> publication and this can wait for the next meeting.

Yes, please remove it until at least somebody else supports the idea.

[...]
> > > This conformance text is for query, not protocol.
> > 
> > Yes, I understand that to be your proposal. My question stands: *why*
> > do you want to put API conformance in the QL spec, when it's
> > already covered by the protocol spec?
> 
> I was trying to read this from the commentor's perspective, and the
> perspective of people developing stuff for the SPARQL spec.
> [[
> A query is <em>successful</em> if it has been processed in accordance
> with the semantics defined in this specification and the semantics
> specified for any invoked extension functions.
> ]] is the only text that orients the reader as to how unimplemented 
> extensions are handled. Also, I think the informative text that I
> proposed is very useful.

I thought we had agreed that it's not coherent. "successful" is
not a property of queries.

> I don't see how the protocol document is relevent to APIs.

At the level of the abstract protocol, an API call or a command-line
invocation is just like a protocol request.

You don't recall discussions of this?

For example...

"SteveH argued that FROM and GRAPH shouldn't be in QL, they belong in an
API or command-line option or some other layer."
 -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/ftf4.html


>  Are you
> advocating that the protocol document be expanded to include APIs?

I am observing/recalling that the protocol document already covers APIs,
abstractly.

> Keep in mind here, I'm not specifically trying to be a PITA; I'm
> just trying to get as much interop on SPARQL as possible cheaply.
> 
> > > > >>>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#conformance
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Sunday, 20 November 2005 22:30:24 GMT

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