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 09:37:37 -0400
Message-ID: <4E37FDA1.30102@thefigtrees.net>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
CC: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On 8/2/2011 9:30 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>
> On 02/08/11 14:08, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>> On 8/2/2011 8:44 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>>
>
> Both of
>> these decisions are reflected in the editor's draft at:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/protocol-1.1/Overview2.xml
>
> Sorry about that but I would point out that the doc is not visible. If
> you go to docs/protocol-1.1/ you get a document "SPARQL 1.1 Protocol for
> RDF", not a directory listing.

Yup, you are right. It was advertised in like one email a couple of 
months ago, but that's about it :-) My apologies.

>>> 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.
>
> Are you including "error" in "implement"?

Yup, the specs allow implementations to error for just about any reason 
they want, so that's fine.

> A common usage is to publish specific dataset at an endpoint.

That's fine within the specs as well.

Lee

>
> Andy
>
>>
>> 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 13:38:32 GMT

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