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

[public-rdf-dawg] <none>

From: David Charboneau <dcharbon@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 09:13:12 -0500
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC5C8C718.DB5F11F7-ON852576A2.004DDE2E-852576A2.004E1D7E@us.ibm.com>
Hi Everyone,
I had a few questions for the group regarding updates to the SPARQL 

1. Should we update the WSDL specification references to the latest 
recommendation? They are currently referencing a 2006 draft of WSDL 2.0, 
rather than the current WSDL 2.0 recommendation.

2. Only a POST binding for the update operation is specified in the WSDL 
since GET should  have no side effects. Are there any objections to this?

3. There are two faults specified for graph errors in an update request, 
GraphDoesNotExist and GraphAlreadyExists. Are there other faults that 
should be specified? Or, should we even go this fine grained? We could 
instead go with a more generic UpdateSemanticError or something and let 
the service implementers decide how to provide clients with more detailed 
information about the semantic error. This is for the case when an update 
is specified to a nonexistent graph, or a graph is specified to be created 
and it already exists.

4. My reading of http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20/#meaning is that a service 
that claims to implement our WSDL for the protocol would have to implement 
both the query and update operations. We'd prefer that these were optional 
- a service provider could implement one or both. To that end, we could 
either define two distinct interfaces; or we could add a new fault that 
allows a service to report "Operation Not Supported" in order to satisfy 
the single interface but opt out of implementing one of the operations. 
Which of these is preferable? Or, is my reading of the WSDL specification 

David Charboneau
Received on Tuesday, 5 January 2010 15:16:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:59 UTC