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

Re: Partial draft: CommentResponse:RC-4

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:20:48 +0100
Message-ID: <4E789330.4090307@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org

On 20/09/11 02:42, Gregory Williams wrote:
> On Sep 13, 2011, at 6:41 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> Partial draft:
>> http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/wiki/CommentResponse:RC-4
> This draft says:
> """ Security is one reason for making this distinction. A complete
> and compliant implementation of SPARQL Query offered at an endpoint
> will reject updates (whether this escape change is made or not)
> because they do not parse as queries. """
> I'm concerned about this text and the implication that a "complete
> and compliant" implementation couldn't accept (as an extension of the
> spec) an update request through the same mechanism as a query request
> (through an API or the protocol). Is preventing such an extension the
> intention of the spec?

It's not the intention: the draft response says

"A complete and compliant implementation of SPARQL Query"

to try to emphasis the _query service_ rejecting queries that look like 
updates.  It's only talking about an unextended service.

It does not say anything about a combined service, offering query and 
update facilities (with different URL query parameter presumably) which 
is what I think you are referring to.  Whether you want to call that two 
services, at a common endpoint or extended service is as much one of 
style because we don't define such a thing.

Is there some rewording that can be done?

Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2011 13:21:32 UTC

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