W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: Protocol changes

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:59:07 -0400
Message-ID: <4ADD51AB.3020106@thefigtrees.net>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Thanks, Axel.

http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/protocol-1.1/ now reflects all of the 
changes suggested in your note, and it should be ready for FPWD modulo 
xml-spec fixes and pubrules checks.

Lee

Axel Polleres wrote:
> I think essentially, the document has all the necessary hooks for the 
> new update operation, but it needs some
> minor TODO's, mostly adding some Editor's notes marking things that 
> still need to be done and fixing the
> section numbering issues to go to FPWD.
> 
> That is, I'd approve the doc to go to FPWD, given:
> 1) some Editor's note was added regards the SOAP binding, especially 
> saying that
>     - the dangling section cross-references to are to be removed
>     - Section "Conformance" needs to be changed to reflect update
> 2) some Editor's note was added in the introduction, saying that "SPARQL 
> 1.1 Update" needs to be mentioned here.
> 3) some  Editor's note should be added in the beginning of section "HTTP 
> Binding" that this will talk about update as well in the future.
> 4) section numbering needs to be fixed
> 5) we should change -- following the resolution from last time -- 
> references to "SPARQL Protocol for RDF"  to "SPARQL 1.1 protocol for 
> RDF" including the document title...
>    at lease this should  also be addressed with an Editor's note
> 
> Axel
> 
> ===========================================
> 
> Details:
> 
> 1) still a lot about the SOAP binding there:
> 
> " and operations, as well as by HTTP and SOAP bindings"
> 
> Section 4 Conformance:
> 
> "must implement [.] SOAP bindings"
> 
> If we removed the section on SOAP binding, shouldn't we also remove 
> those references? THese refer to XXQUERYXX only, but actually we have no 
> binding conditions to XXUPDATEXX as far as I can see
> 
> I suggest we add an editor's not there saying that the required bindings 
> for XXUPDATEXX aren't yet fixed in this draft, i.e. whether a SOAP 
> binding alone would also be conferment.
> 
> Actually, I assume that we do not require XXUPDATEXX to be implemented 
> for conformance, but we may add it to the MAY bullets, yes?
> 
> 
> 2) In the introduction,
> "This document (which refers to itself as "SPARQL Protocol for RDF") 
> describes SPARQL Protocol, a means of conveying SPARQL
> queries from query clients to query processors. SPARQL Protocol has been 
> designed for compatibility with
> the SPARQL Query Language for RDF [SPARQL]. SPARQL Protocol is described in
> two ways:"
> 
> Add an Editor's note that  also the "SPARQL Update language" needs to be 
> mentioned here in.
> 
> 3)
> 2.2 HTTP Bindings
> 
> should have two subsections for query/update bindings?
> at least a todo marker in the beginning, that it will also talk about 
> update in the future.
> 
> 
> 4) as mentioned in the changelog, the section numbering still needs fixing
> 
>  2.1.3 XXUPDATEXX In Message
>  2.1.4 XXUPDATEXX Out Message
> 
> should be
> 
>  2.1.2.1 XXUPDATEXX In Message
>  2.1.2.2 XXUPDATEXX Out Message
> 
> etc.
> 
> some further confusion with section numbering in Section 2.2:
> 
>  *
>  2.2.1 queryHttpGet
>  2.2.1 HTTP Examples for SPARQL Query
> 
>  *
>  2.2.3.1 SELECT with service-supplied RDF dataset
>  is the first subsection of 2.2.1
> 
>  *
>  2.2.2 queryHttpPost
>  2.2.2 HTTP Examples for SPARQL Update
> 
> 5)
> This document (which refers to itself as "SPARQL Protocol for RDF")
> 
> do we need to refer to version number 1.1 here?
> 
Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2009 05:59:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:40 GMT