- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 21:33:40 +0100
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- CC: public-rdf-dawg-comments <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>
On 31/07/12 20:41, David Booth wrote: > On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 18:39 +0100, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> >> On 31/07/12 18:00, David Booth wrote: >>> Hi Andy, >>> >>> Thanks for your response. I am not satisfied with this resolution. >>> I see no harm that would be created by the simple wording change that >>> I proposed -- NO implementation would have to change -- and I do see >>> harm in the current wording. >> >> An implementation of an RDF system capable of receiving results from a >> SPARQL 1.0 engine would have to change to work with the same query in >> the loose SPARQL 1.1 implementation. It would require at least a new >> and specialised parser. > > No it wouldn't. SPARQL 1.0 engines are not currently required to accept > malformed RDF, nor are they required to accept RDF with malformed > xsd:datetimes. This would not change. They could still reject such > malformed input. Client side. A client issues a CONSTRUCT query string to an engine, and get back RDF which it parses. If it switches to a different query service, or the service is upgraded, even with the same legal SPARQL 1.0 query and same data, the client starts to get back not-RDF it breaks with a parse error (or some other failure such as no conneg). ... > Anyway, based on the above new information, I'll revoke my objection. I > am satisfied with this resolution. Noted. Andy > > Thanks! > David >
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2012 20:34:09 UTC