W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > March 2006

RE: Belated comments on SPARQL Protocol for RDF 25 January 2006 LC WD

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:50:35 -0500
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF3826A12B.1A1C30B7-ON85257139.00694C5D-85257139.006CFF67@ca.ibm.com>
Dan,

Thx for the reference on when to use GET.

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca



Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
03/22/2006 11:34 AM

To
Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
cc
Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, 
www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Subject
RE: Belated comments on SPARQL Protocol for RDF 25 January 2006 LC      WD







On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 10:33 -0500, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> 
> Dan, 

> BTW, there is a WSDL extension attribute wsdlx:safe [1] You can use
> that to mark on operation that is known to be safe, in which case it
> would be bound to GET. 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-adjuncts-20060106/#safety 

I assumed we were using that. Kendall, are we not?
Hmm.

> Is the query operation supposed to be safe? 

Yes.
> 
> <operation name="query"
> pattern="http://www.w3.org/2006/01/wsdl/in-out"> 
> 
> You have two HTTP bindings for it, GET and POST. Doesn't this violate
> Web architecture?

No.

>  If the operation is safe, it should be bound to GET.

It _is_ bound to GET; it's also bound to POST.


>  If the operation is not safe, it should not be bound to GET. Seems
> like binding the same operation to both GET and POST should never
> happen. Or are you leaving it up to the user?

Yes, with this advice:

[[
The queryHttpGet binding should be used except in cases where the
URL-encoded query exceeds practicable limits, in which case the
queryHttpPost binding should be used.
]]
 -- http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-protocol/#query-bindings-http

See also section 5 Practical Considerations in the relevant TAG finding:
  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/whenToUseGet.html#practical


>  Does the safety depend on the actual query, i.e. some querys do
> updates (I have read the SPARQL spec) ?

We haven't specified updates in this version; nonetheless, some
queries don't fit in GET.

>  If so, having both bindings does make sense.Thx. 


> Arthur Ryman,
> IBM Software Group, Rational Division
> 
> blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/

> 
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 22 March 2006 19:51:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:39 GMT