W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: sparql extensions and protocol conformance

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:02:46 +0100
Message-ID: <4BD69A26.6050309@talis.com>
To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
CC: SPARQL Working Group WG <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> My initial thought on this would be to think of valid endpoints as those that produced the correct answer to all valid SPARQL queries, but also might produce answers to non-valid SPARQL queries. This would allow implementors to play around with extensions and hopefully lead towards useful functionality that could be input to a next round of standardization.
>
> Does anyone have thoughts on this issue? If we continue to say that an endpoint must return an error if the query string isn't valid w.r.t. the grammar, does that affect the endpoint's ability to validly claim sd:supportedLanguage sd:SPARQL11Query? Or is it still a conformant SPARQL *Query* implementation, just not a conformant *Protocol* implementation?

As long as a service produces the correct answers for correct SPARQL 
1.1. queries, then I'm happy with the claim "SPARQL 1.1 compliant".

For me, it depends on the details of the claim - if the service cliams 
/strict/ compliance, then non-1.1 queries should produce an error (one 
way of looking at this is that there can be multiple services depending 
on the request).

Syntax extensions are extensions, not replacements - all the spec'ed 
SPARQL 1.1 Query language should be supported with the correct behavior.

	Andy
Received on Tuesday, 27 April 2010 08:03:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:42 GMT