- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:49:52 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 04:45:54PM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: > We just recently got a comment about that... > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Jul/0061.html > > Would you please respond to it? I did, offline, this morning, but, yes, I'll respond publicly tonight or tomorrow. > That's at least progress on... > > ACTION KendallC: add POST binding to protocol doc > > I'll probably double-check later to see whether it's > in progress or completely done. In progress. > > - added semantics for malformed query fault, though I believe this may be > > incomplete as spec'd currently > > Hmm... I hope somebody gets inspired to do some protocol > test infrastructure work soonish. Well, yes, but I meant something different. I meant that in the text at hand, I said that a MalformedQuery fault must be returned when, basically, the query is illegal. I'm wondering if it should be returned in any *other* cases? Like problems with RDF dataset, say. > The only action I see that you didn't make at least some > progress on is... > > ACTION KendallC: Check whether the results namespace is in protocol > draft; if so, update. Ah, yes, thanks. What did we decide for the results namespace after all? Kendall Clark
Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2005 21:51:54 UTC