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

Re: Format of SPARQL Update results

From: Alexandre Passant <alexandre.passant@deri.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 11:43:42 +0000
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <33FBBE4C-1015-4882-BD77-31FFDB18289B@deri.org>
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>

On 23 Dec 2010, at 11:22, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> On 12/23/2010 6:15 AM, Alexandre Passant wrote:
>> 
>> On 23 Dec 2010, at 11:09, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>> 
>>> On 12/23/2010 5:07 AM, Alexandre Passant wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Reading the discussion about JSON serialization of query results, I figured out that we don't have a proper format for results of SPARQL Update queries.
>>>> Since we agreed to send only success / failure as a result, I suggest to use the boolean return form (as for ASK) with true / false values depending on the success / failure (so that it does not require updates to the XML / JSON result formats).
>>>> 
>>>> I don't think we need a formal vote for that, but if anyone objects or have other opinions, please let me know.
>>>> If not, I'll include that to the next round of publishing.
>>> 
>>> The prevailing opinion at the protocol TC was that there is no response other than success or failure -- in the protocol, success or failure is indicated with HTTP response codes. I'd expect that in the SPARQL Update document itself, the response is left abstract ("success" or "failure"), just as in the SPARQL Query document the result is abstract (a solution list).
>>> 
>> 
>> OK.
>> 
>>> If an implementation handles a SPARQL Update request via any mechanism other than the SPARQL Protocol (e.g. via an API), then it's up to them how to concretely instantiate "success" and "failure".
>> 
>> When using a command line SPARQL API, I'm expecting the API to return well-formed JSON / XML that I can parse as if it comes from an endpoint compliant with the protocol (that how I used 3store in the past). I'd like to get the same thing for update, i.e. a way to know if an update has worked or not using the response document (XML / JSON), not only the HTTP response code.
> 
> I think you can expect that all you want, but it's out of scope for the SPARQL specifications, as far as I can tell.
> 
>> So what about combining HTTP code with some more formalism in the result document (boolean + comment, as requested by steve) ?
> 
> I think that extending the result format at this point in time is beyond the scope of work we can reasonably take on.

If we just use the boolean, we won't need to extend, just tell people to use that for Update results.

> 
> I'd encourage implementors to explore this space and perhaps it's something we can standardize in the next go round...

My aim was just to agree on a new "comment" field in the header, but I agree it implies to rework the XML / JSON results, which is probably more work.

Alex.

> 
> Lee
> 
>> 
>> Alex.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Lee
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> Alex.
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Dr. Alexandre Passant
>>>> Digital Enterprise Research Institute
>>>> National University of Ireland, Galway
>>>> :me owl:sameAs<http://apassant.net/alex>   .
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Dr. Alexandre Passant
>> Digital Enterprise Research Institute
>> National University of Ireland, Galway
>> :me owl:sameAs<http://apassant.net/alex>  .
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

--
Dr. Alexandre Passant
Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Galway
:me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .
Received on Thursday, 23 December 2010 11:44:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:44 GMT