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

Re: SPARQL 1.1 Protocol Conformance

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 09:08:21 -0400
Message-ID: <4E37F6C5.9050501@thefigtrees.net>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
CC: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On 8/2/2011 8:44 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>
> On 02/08/11 03:08, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>> In SPARQL 1.0, conformance to the SPARQL Protocol required that an
>> implementation implement the abstract query interface, and that if the
>> implementation implemented the HTTP or SOAP bindings to that interface,
>> that that be done in the manner specified in the document. (See
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-protocol/#conformance)
>>
>> In the SPARQL 1.1 Protocol, we have these changes:
>>
>> * Added an update operation
>> * Removed an abstract definition of the operation
>> * Removed SOAP bindings
>> * Added the ability to directly POST a query or update, in addition to
>> via HTTP GET & POST
>>
>> So what should conformance be?
>>
>> Suggestion:
>>
>> * Implement either the query or the update operation or both
>> * For any implemented operations, implement it in at least one of the
>> ways normatively defined in the document
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> Unless we can find 2 implementations to provide coverage for SOAP, then
> we can't pass the CR criteria anyway.

The Working Group decided to remove SOAP a long time ago, and to define 
the protocol against HTTP only (no WSDL) almost as long ago. Both of 
these decisions are reflected in the editor's draft at:

http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/protocol-1.1/Overview2.xml

> So I think we should check, then if we can't get coverage, drop SOAP,
> and if we do, drop WSDL in favor of a descriptive style. This isn't a
> trivial change to the doc but it isn't huge either; we don't have the
> WSDL for update yet.

This has already all been done.

> Operation: query
> Parameters:
> query .... occurs once, required ...
> default-graph-uri ....
> named-grap-uri=...
> Result formats:
> ...
>
> WSDL does not help the HTTP implementer; is there an alternative, more
> widely used protocl descritption system for HTTP? Most web APIs seem to
> have description +a table and examples.
>
> Not sure where 5 comes from; there are actually two variations of query,
> implicit and explicit dataset description, +, arguably, FROM/FROM NAME
> handling.

The 5 are:

query via GET  (same as SPARQL 1.0)
query via POST with URL-encoded parameters (same as SPARQL 1.0)
query via directly POSTed query string (new for SPARQL 1.1)
update via POST with URL-encoded parameters
update via directly POSTed update request string

Whichever of these mechanisms is implemented, it must support the full 
protocol, which includes the default-graph-uri and named-graph-uri 
parameters and their relationship with FROM/FROM NAMED/USING/USING NAMED.

Lee

> I am planning on reporting on HTTP, query and update and HTTP graph
> protocol; on different endpoints. Query will be for both implicit
> dataset and specified dataset (this latter item is recurrent request for
> users for Fuseki which lacks the feature).
>
> I'm willing to help redraft the protocol doc if it's de-SOAPed.
>
> Andy
>
>>
>> Lee
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 13:09:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:46 GMT