Re: Suggested modification for CONSTRUCT

On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 10:39:44PM -0800, Pat Hayes wrote:
> Question: would it be worth having an error be generated in this kind 
> of a case, but allowing the pattern to include a 'FORCE' option which 
> overrides the error and produces the current behavior? I can imagine 
> cases where finding an 'illegal' pattern might be something one would 
> want to know about, rather than having it made invisible.

Or a warning.

This leads me to something I meant to comment on re. implementing (bits
of) the return format and protocol. I think it would be useful if the return
format included some way to encode error messages insead of or in addition
to result bindings.

When accessing SPARQL engines over HTTP you can use HTTP error values, but
you still have to provide some content to go with it to explain the error.
I'm doing it with HTML currently, but thats not a great idea for
mechanistic access eg. from non-interactive software. Also not all access
will be (direclty) via HTTP.

- Steve

Received on Sunday, 19 December 2004 22:56:09 UTC