Re: preparing for protocol discussion

Kendall Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 02:06:31PM +0000, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> 
> 
>>Kendall - hope you well for the F2F.
> 
> 
> Thanks, Andy. I'll be there.

Great!

> 
> 
>>What I've implemented is "?query=...&lang=..." (paramter order does not 
>>matter) over HTTP, and also plain GET (no query string).  I use various 
>>HTTP error codes as I saw a match at the time, including:
> 
> 
> Yr "query" and "lang" are equivalent IMO to the protocol draft's
> "query" and "query-lang". I prefer "query-lang" because it's more
> explicit than "lang", which could mean natural language, programming
> language, etc. But I take that they have the same semantics.
> 
> 
>>I haven't implemented "graph-uri=" (I intend to and I would if it is in the 
>>protocol) but queries can have WITH/FROM.
> 
> 
> It is in the protocol, where it's spelled "graph-id". It's listed in
> the HTTP Query Parameters table. The cardinality is wrong and I need
> to remove the reference to the query language spec, but it's there.

sorry - missed it - time to get coding - quick to add to get the right 
effect but a bit more major for the effect on Joseki config files.

The examples have "graph=" - is that the same param as well?

If the cardinality is not 0 or 1 then what should it be?  If >1, is it one 
query executed over each of the graphs given by URI as per example 1.3 where 
the results are multipart?

1.3 query: One query against multiple RDF Graphs
....
200 OK HTTP/1.1
Server: my-sparql-server/0.0
Content-Type: multipart/mime

i.e.

query = compile(querystring or retrieve query-=ri)
for each "graph=<uri>" do
   g = gragh identified by <uri>
   result = query(g)
   start multipart part
   insert results
   end multipart part
   done

> 
> 
>>"lang=" helps, if its a model-centric view, but I don't have any 
>>reservations with the service-oriented view with service instance implying 
>>query language. i.e. no "lang="
> 
> 
> I don't either. I'll mark "query-lang" as optional.
> 
> Hope this helps.

Certainly enough to be getting on with.

> 
> Kendall

	Andy

Received on Saturday, 26 February 2005 17:56:32 UTC