- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:54:35 -0600
- To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Cc: dawg mailing list <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 14:34 -0500, Kendall Clark wrote: > Folks, > > I'm having trouble with my action to add a SPARQL++ query to the > protocol doc and to think about whether that sparks any mojo re: a > separate interface. > > EricP did his part and supplied some interesting queries, but I > haven't added them to the editor's draft yet because I don't know > what the response should be. And I can't see much utility in merely > copying his queries (alone) into the editor's draft w/out some idea > of what I think the response should be. > > I think the default view (as I understand it) is now my preferred > design option: if you want to handle SPARQL++ queries, that's great, > but do so in a separate interface. The editor's draft says as much > already, so I'm happy to leave it as-is. > > I don't know if this discharges my ACTION, but it's the state of play > as of today. It's close enough for me... well, almost. Where does the spec say that SPARQL++ must not get Query Out responses? I see "When the value of the query type is not a legal sequence of characters in the language defined by the SPARQL grammar, the MalformedQuery fault message should be returned." but that's only a should. It leaves open the possibility that somebody says "my reason for doing it differently is this cool list handling extension..." I don't feel very strongly about which way the WG chooses; I just want us to choose consciously. I'm leaning toward adding this (protocol/syntax extensibility) to our issues list explicitly, mostly as a way to collect the various disconnected discussions. > > Cheers, > Kendall > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 13 February 2006 19:54:57 UTC