W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: SPARQL 1.1 Protocol Conformance

From: Greg Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 20:01:44 -0700
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110802030144.GF28037@realify.com>
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 10:08:33PM -0400, Lee Feigenbaum said:
> This feels to me to be in the spirit of the SPARQL 1.0 Protocol... that  
> said, I'm not thrilled with it since this is a protocol and this gives  
> you 5 different things you can implement to be a conformant SPARQL 1.1  
> Protocol implementation -- that doesn't seem great to be for  
> interoperability.

I'm hesitant to suggest that service descriptions be part of protocol conformance, but that would at least give a stronger and less variable sense of what protocol conformance means (still 5 things that could be conformant, but with a SD that tells you which of the 5 is actually implemented). This also relates to a point raised in DB-6 asking if the SD conformance text belongs in the protocol document. (As currently specified, I think not; if SD is required of protocol implementations in the future, then probably yes.)

Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 03:02:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:04 UTC