- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 19:09:57 +0000
- To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Kendall Clark wrote: > Here's my position: > > 1. Having a WSDL for a service doesn't constrain the HTTP layer in > any other way. It simply cannot do so. > > 2. The only thing WSDL can say or describe (and thus "constrain" if a > service conforms to WSDL) is (relevantly) WSDL *faults*, which in > HTTP are serialized as HTTP status codes (and in other ways, I think, > but that's not relevant here). > > So, if these status codes yr worried about people thinking they can't > use are WSDL faults, let's make them WSDL faults and choose HTTP > status codes to serialize them. > Otherwise they are merely HTTP status codes, in the HTTP layer, and > WSDL doesn't say anything about them, and thus doesn't abjure them. Thank you for summarizing your position. Mine is that the protocol document says a QueryRequestRefused *must* be returned and that "*must*" is an absolute requirement (using RFC2119 terminolgy). That leaves no room to return another status code and claim to be an implementation of the SPARQL interface. I am only seeking clarification for the HTTP case. The SOAP case is clearer because it can directly encode the fault in the message. > If you want a statement to that effect in the document, I drafted one > in my previous message. You reject it because you think it > contradicts "intended interaction". But it doesn't. If that is: "A SPARQL Protocol service may employ the full range of HTTP status codes consistent with the usage of QueryRequestRefused and MalformedQuery as describe in section 2.1.4." [[I didn't see that as an offer because you then provided alternative, preferred text quoting from the current document which is not acceptable.]] As it's a redrafting of my initial text (:-), the "employ the full range" text is acceptable even though the use of *must* (RFC2119) is used in tehfault definition when the "*should*" meaning seems to fit better ("may exist valid reasons"). Andy > > Cheers, > Kendall >
Received on Friday, 6 January 2006 19:10:12 UTC