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

Re: SPARQL 1.1 Protocol formats

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:26:21 -0500
Message-ID: <4B8BEAAD.7070508@thefigtrees.net>
To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
CC: dcharbon@us.ibm.com, SPARQL Working Group WG <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 2/27/2010 11:19 PM, Gregory Williams wrote:
> David,
>
> I stumbled upon what I think is an issue with the protocol document
> while trying to respond to a comment about service descriptions.
>
> It would be nice if the protocol doc talked about the serialization
> format for CONSTRUCT/DESCRIBE queries in a bit more detail. The only
> construct query example in the draft uses Turtle in the response, but
> there's no text discussing this. Section 2.1.1.2 indicates that
> RDF/XML and application/sparql-results+xml are the only explicitly
> supported formats, but other RDF serializations are also acceptable.
>
> Again in section 2.1.1.2, an Out Message is described as optionally
> being "an equivalent RDF graph serialization" to RDF/XML, but there's
> no indication whether this ought to align with Accept headers in the
> HTTP bindings (perhaps this is discussed somewhere that I've
> overlooked?). I'm left thinking that an implementation could always
> return RDF in a non-standard, non-RDF/XML format, even if RDF/XML is
> the only format requested (or if no explicit format is requested),
> and still be conformant. Have I understood that correctly?

The intention is definitely to follow standard HTTP content negotiation 
processes (i.e. honor the Accept header).

The spec says:

"""
An Informative Note About Serialization Constraints. The output 
serialization of the queryHttpGet and queryHttpPost bindings is 
intentionally under constrained in order to reflect the variety of 
serialization types of RDF graphs. The fault serialization of 
queryHttpGet and queryHttpPost is also intentionally under constrained. 
A conformant SPARQL Protocol service can provide alternative WSDL 
interfaces and bindings with different constraints.
"""

...which gives a bit of motivation but doesn't directly address Greg's 
concern.

I don't think the protocol spec. specifically says "honor the accept 
header", though I'm wondering if the WSDL HTTP adjunct says this. Let's see.

Looking through http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20-adjuncts/, I find normative 
text that says that a serialization must be one of the formats specified 
in the WSDL. (we specify SPARQL XML, RDF/XML, and */*, so that's moot 
for our purposes). I do _not_ see anything which gives advice on how to 
choose between multiple serialization formats - i.e. nothing in the HTTP 
binding text says "use content negotiation to choose between candidate 
serialization formats".

So... I think it would be worthwhile to clarify this, at least 
informatively?

Lee

> thanks, .greg
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 16:27:25 GMT

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