W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > January 2006

Re: [OK?] Re: SPARQL: Error handling

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:02:32 -0500
Message-Id: <CA80AEC1-B479-4EC6-84D8-F73B2A5590CD@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>

On Jan 29, 2006, at 11:45 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:
>> Is there any reason to state the fault propagation rule redundantly?
> I'm having trouble seeing the redundancy; where does it already say
> that Out Message must not be returned in the case of syntax errors?

The spec says that in the case of a syntax error, the MalformedQuery  
fault should be returned. If this (or any other) fault is returned,  
no Out Message can be returned, by the WSDL 2.0 fault propagation  
rule our spec uses.

Thus, if you return MalformedQuery, you cannot return an Out Message.  
That's what it says by saying that we're using Fault Replaces Message  
fault propagation rule.

I guess it's more accurate to say that it implies this prohibition  
rather than explicitly states it. But isn't that editorial rather  
than substantive?

>> At any rate, in 1.108 I've updated this section in response to this
>> discussion.

Is the relevant language insufficient as it stands?


When a SPARQL query string is not a legal sequence of characters in  
the language defined by the SPARQL grammar, this fault message should  
be returned. See 2.1.4 query Fault Messages for SPARQL Protocol fault  
propagation rules. In the case of HTTP bindings, an HTTP 2xx status  
code must not be returned.

You're part of the human race
All of the stars and the outer space
Part of the system again
Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 05:02:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:07 UTC