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

Review of SPARQL 1.1 Protocol

From: Luke Wilson-Mawer <luke.wilson-mawer@garlik.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:33:44 +0000
Message-ID: <4B4BB558.8030406@garlik.com>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Hi all,

Here are my comments on SPARQL 1.1 Protocol, which I thought was 
particularly clear and well written.

Most of my comments are superficial and minor, but there are a couple of 
technical ones in there.  I'm not really familiar with WSDL, but I hope 
my comments are of some use nonetheless.

Kind regards,

Luke

*1) Introduction*

    * Documents are named inconsistently in the first paragraph (I think
      the update document is named correctly, but not query): "SPARQL
      Query Language 1.1" and "SPARQL 1.1 Update".

    * The Update and Query documents are named here, but should other
      documents which are also affected by the protocol, such as service
      description and the rest interface, be mentioned here too? 

*2.1) SparqlProtocol Interface*

    * I know they've already been mentioned, but it would be good to
      have a definition of the update faults somewhere.  Perhaps they
      should be in the update document.

*2.1.1.1.4) Determining The Base IRI*

    * It is mentioned that the Base IRI may come from, for example, a
      SOAP envelope, but it doesn't seem clear (to me at least) whether
      it should take precedence over a BASE IRI specified using the
      query language.

*2.1.2.1) XXUPDATEXX in Message*

    * It would be nice to have an XML fragment here showing an
      update-request, like the one in section 2.1.1.1.

    * INTO and FROM are mentioned, even though I think they have been
      removed them from the update spec.  WITH is present in the update
      spec but not here.

    * If the INTO in the older update syntax of INSERT INTO <uri> {} is
      replaced by the user of GRAPH in the new syntax of INSERT {GRAPH
      <uri> {}}, does this mean that GRAPH is now taking the role of
      specifying the dataset?  Does this matter, and should it be
      included here?  Perhaps I've missed something in the dataset
      conversation.

*2.1.3) Fault Messages*

    * 'MUST', 'MUST NOT' etc. are used in capitals here, which is
      inconsistent with the rest of the document.

    * In my opinion, it would be nicer to include the second paragraph
      of each of 2.1.3.1, 2.1.3.2, 2.1.3.3, 2.1.3.4 at the top of the
      section, otherwise the user has to read the same paragraph 4 times.

*2.2) HTTP Bindings *

    * There is an XX missing off XXUPDATE.

    * Perhaps "A conformant SPARQL Protocol service" ought to include a 1.1.

*General (all none technical)*

    * It's stating the obvious, I know, but there are still a couple of
      @@sec@@ parts in there.
    * Excerpts could have more descriptive titles than "XML Schema
      Fragment".
    * Items in square brackets don't always point to a reference.
Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 23:34:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:41 GMT