- From: David Wood <dwood@softwarememetics.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:49:38 -0400
- To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Hi all, I reviewed [1], which at the time was the current version, pointed to by [2]. 1. Comments It is my (personal) opinion that this document is not ready for publication until the WSDL 2.0 compliance issue in Section 2.2 is resolved. The phrase "DAWG acknowledges the risk inherent in describing its protocol in an illegal variant of WSDL 2.0" is not sufficient to relieve the working group of its responsibility for interoperability. Indeed, if this specification were to be published without resolution of this issue, I think it is quite likely that WSDL 2.0 implementations would not change to reflect it. That would materially damage the SPARQL Protocol's likelihood of uptake. I understand that the DAWG has approached the Web Services Description Working Group on this issue and I wish them well in resolving it. My suggestion for resolution is to comply with the final WSDL 2.0 specification (now in Last Call). If the requirement for a single return type is not changed, then I suggest the DAWG create a new, lightweight XML format for query Out Messages to wrap query results in a single Internet Media Type. The new format could hold an SRD, N3, etc. Although I recognize the loss of efficiency that this entails, I believe that it is preferable to failing to comply with WSDL 2.0. Similarly, the work should be done to address the (easier) WSDL 2.0 compliance issues in the presented binding before publication. I applaud the DAWG for catching the possibility for ambiguous RDF datasets between protocol and query language and resolving it cleanly. 2. Important/Technical ERROR: In the first paragraph of Section 2.1.2, "called st:query- result" should be changed to "called st:query-request". ERROR: The element name "query-result" in Figure 1.1, "XML Schema fragment", should be changed to "query-request". OMISSION: In the "Malformed Query" paragraph of Section 2.1.4, it is unclear what behavior is expected from a query processing service if a malformed query does not result in a MalformedQuery fault. One way to solve this is to make such a fault mandatory ("must" instead of "should"). If that is not done, the document should say what kind of behavior to expect (is a QueryRequestRefused OK? How about returning nothing?). SUGGESTION: Section 2.2 says "if a SPARQL Protocol service supports HTTP bindings, it must support the bindings as described in sparql-protocol-query.wsdl. A SPARQL Protocol service may support other interfaces." If I am reading that correctly, it says that if I only want to have a RESTful interface and not WSDL, I am not compliant. I don't like that in theory or in practice, especially since sparql-protocol-query.wsdl is currently broken rather badly. SUGGESTION: The use of a diminutive ("Little Jo") in Section 2.2.1.3 may be taken as insulting (or, worst, racist) by some and should therefore by changed to something else (e.g. "Jo"). SUGGESTION: Section 3.0, "Policy Considerations", states that query services MAY refuse to process certain query requests. In that case, I suggest making it clear that they MUST do so as defined in Section 2.1.4. SUGGESTION: In Section 3.0, the phrase "may be constrained by law in some countries" should be changed to "may be constrained by law in some jurisdictions". QUESTION: In the first paragraph of Section 2.1.2, could the phrase "represented in the message schema by query" be deleted without changing the intention? Does the reference to the "message schema" refer to another document? QUESTION: There are references to both IRIs and URIs in this document. Does that represent the state of IRI uptake or an error? QUESTION: Was the Content-Type of the example query intended to be "application/x-www-form-urlencoded"? QUESTION: I noticed that the SPARQL Query Language for RDF working draft [3] (as of Revision 1.390 2005/06/13 13:37:19) removed references to bnodes in results. Should the bnode used in Section 2.2.1.1 in the example result be removed? 3. Formatting ERROR: The title of Section 2.1.2, "query-result In Message" should be changed to "query In Message" to be consistent with the titles of Sections 2.1.1, 2.1.3 and 2.1.4. SUGGESTION: The "PREFIX foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>" lines in the SPARQL example queries in Sections 2.2.1.1, 2.2.1.2 and 2.2.1.4 are not used and should be deleted. 4. Nits SUGGESTION: The <documentation> section of Figure 1.0, "WSDL 2.0 fragment" in Section 2.1.1 ends in two periods (full stops for those who learned English in the Commonwealth) instead of one. SUGGESTION: In the first paragraph of Section 2.1.4, I suggest deleting the words "described here". SUGGESTION: In the "Malformed Query" paragraph of Section 2.1.4, I suggest changing "should be returned, but an HTTP" to "should be returned. An HTTP". [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-rdf-sparql-protocol-20050914/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-protocol/ [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/ Regards, Dave
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2005 21:49:49 UTC