W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: trouble with my ACTION (protocol/syntax extensibility)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:54:35 -0600
To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: dawg mailing list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1139860475.12577.627.camel@dirk.w3.org>

On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 14:34 -0500, Kendall Clark wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> I'm having trouble with my action to add a SPARQL++ query to the  
> protocol doc and to think about whether that sparks any mojo re: a  
> separate interface.
> 
> EricP did his part and supplied some interesting queries, but I  
> haven't added them to the editor's draft yet because I don't know  
> what the response should be. And I can't see much utility in merely  
> copying his queries (alone) into the editor's draft w/out some idea  
> of what I think the response should be.
> 
> I think the default view (as I understand it) is now my preferred  
> design option: if you want to handle SPARQL++ queries, that's great,  
> but do so in a separate interface. The editor's draft says as much  
> already, so I'm happy to leave it as-is.
> 
> I don't know if this discharges my ACTION, but it's the state of play  
> as of today.

It's close enough for me... well, almost.

Where does the spec say that SPARQL++ must not get Query Out responses?

I see
"When the value of the query type is not a legal sequence of characters
in the language defined by the SPARQL grammar, the MalformedQuery fault
message should be returned."

but that's only a should.

It leaves open the possibility that somebody says "my reason
for doing it differently is this cool list handling extension..."

I don't feel very strongly about which way the WG chooses; I just
want us to choose consciously.

I'm leaning toward adding this (protocol/syntax extensibility)
to our issues list explicitly, mostly as a way to collect
the various disconnected discussions.


> 
> Cheers,
> Kendall
> 
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 13 February 2006 19:54:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:25 GMT