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

Re: protocol issues and do we need a dedicated TC on them?

From: Alexandre Passant <alexandre.passant@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:06:47 +0100
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8998725F-A5FF-42AC-BCF1-9FD60F405C4A@deri.org>
To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Hi,

On 27 Jul 2010, at 16:25, Axel Polleres wrote:

[...]
> 
> =======================================================================
> 
> More ISSUEs not yet listed? 
> 
> =======================================================================
> ISSUE-A: concrete result format of update

We agreed that Update (language-wise) will only return success or failure.
Do you want to discuss how to model that in the Protocol or is that another issue ?

Alex.

> 
> =======================================================================
> ISSUE-B: Where do we (need to) say something about transactionality?
> 
> We have closed the ISSUES regarding transactionality, but - WHERE do we mention
> the conclusion of this discussion, I suggest to add an appendix "Transactionality/Concurrency" to protocol noting:
> 
> "Any compliant SPARQL1.1 implementation SHOULD treat every (HTTP) request atomically. SPARQL1.1 does not specify any further 
> restrictions regarding transactionality and concurrency, although specific implementations may satisfy stronger guarantees."
> 
> =======================================================================
> 
> 
> 

--
Dr. Alexandre Passant
Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Galway
:me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .
Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2010 16:07:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:43 GMT