- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:19:16 -0500
- To: DAWG public list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 03:38:45AM +0000, Steve Harris wrote: > > getOptions is not REQUIRED, from my experiences with Z39.50 I would say > this is a mistake. Well, I would mark all 7 methods required if it were up to me. :> > Query example 1.1 seems to be a select that returns a section of an RDF > graph (rather than a graph that describes a result set), I haven't URL > decoded the string, but I dont see how that works. Two things: I don't give any examples of XML variable binding sets, simply because I couldn't find the msg in the archive that describes the format. That's a wart that I intend to fix. The key thing is the use of HTTP, not the payloads actually returned (except in the case where I show returning an RDF graph to amplify the meaning of an HTTP error response code). Thanks for pointing this out. It's on the short list of things that need to be fixed soon. I thought seriously about *not* encoding the Request-URIs, since this is a spec, not real network messages, and unencoded ones are easier to read. Have to balance that against the possibility of misleading someone. > Why do the HTTP binding arguments have []'s round them? I dont have a > particular problem, with it, but it seems unneccesary, and a bit of a > break from the norm. Because of my argument, which is the first 5 paragraphs, surrounded by "[[" and "]]", that I don't want to hardcode URI query parameters in our specification. I'd prefer to either create/generate message formats (basically, RDF graphs generated from WSDL 2 descriptions) that can be dynamically discovered and which contain that information or to create rules (like we did with HTTP and HTML forms) to generate URIs. So, since I don't want to hardcode URI query parameters, but I need to show HTTP messages, I chose a convention [PARAM_NAME] that I hoped would signal that I wasn't suggesting that parameter name and was only showing it because I wanted to show the other parts of some HTTP messages. Then I forgot to add it to my notation section, so it's no wonder people are confused by it. I'll fix that soon too. Eventually it can go away once we make some decisions about hardcoding versus discovery versus generative. I thought long and hard about this issue, talked to people about it, and finally decided to punt it to the larger group, rather than continue to delay the draft spec getting released. Thanks for the comments, Steve. Kendall -- Sometimes it's appropriate, even patriotic, to be ashamed of your country. -- James Howard Kunstler
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2004 13:19:56 UTC