W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: Protocol changes

From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:35:41 +0100
Cc: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2D20AF55-58B0-4ED3-9FD9-48A5E50D179A@deri.org>
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
I think essentially, the document has all the necessary hooks for the  
new update operation, but it needs some
minor TODO's, mostly adding some Editor's notes marking things that  
still need to be done and fixing the
section numbering issues to go to FPWD.

That is, I'd approve the doc to go to FPWD, given:
1) some Editor's note was added regards the SOAP binding, especially  
saying that
     - the dangling section cross-references to are to be removed
     - Section "Conformance" needs to be changed to reflect update
2) some Editor's note was added in the introduction, saying that  
"SPARQL 1.1 Update" needs to be mentioned here.
3) some  Editor's note should be added in the beginning of section  
"HTTP Binding" that this will talk about update as well in the future.
4) section numbering needs to be fixed
5) we should change -- following the resolution from last time --  
references to "SPARQL Protocol for RDF"  to "SPARQL 1.1 protocol for  
RDF" including the document title...
    at lease this should  also be addressed with an Editor's note




1) still a lot about the SOAP binding there:

" and operations, as well as by HTTP and SOAP bindings"

Section 4 Conformance:

"must implement [.] SOAP bindings"

If we removed the section on SOAP binding, shouldn't we also remove  
those references? THese refer to XXQUERYXX only, but actually we have  
no binding conditions to XXUPDATEXX as far as I can see

I suggest we add an editor's not there saying that the required  
bindings for XXUPDATEXX aren't yet fixed in this draft, i.e. whether a  
SOAP binding alone would also be conferment.

Actually, I assume that we do not require XXUPDATEXX to be implemented  
for conformance, but we may add it to the MAY bullets, yes?

2) In the introduction,
"This document (which refers to itself as "SPARQL Protocol for RDF")  
describes SPARQL Protocol, a means of conveying SPARQL
queries from query clients to query processors. SPARQL Protocol has  
been designed for compatibility with
the SPARQL Query Language for RDF [SPARQL]. SPARQL Protocol is  
described in
two ways:"

Add an Editor's note that  also the "SPARQL Update language" needs to  
be mentioned here in.

2.2 HTTP Bindings

should have two subsections for query/update bindings?
at least a todo marker in the beginning, that it will also talk about  
update in the future.

4) as mentioned in the changelog, the section numbering still needs  

  2.1.3 XXUPDATEXX In Message
  2.1.4 XXUPDATEXX Out Message

should be XXUPDATEXX In Message XXUPDATEXX Out Message


some further confusion with section numbering in Section 2.2:

  2.2.1 queryHttpGet
  2.2.1 HTTP Examples for SPARQL Query

  * SELECT with service-supplied RDF dataset
  is the first subsection of 2.2.1

  2.2.2 queryHttpPost
  2.2.2 HTTP Examples for SPARQL Update

This document (which refers to itself as "SPARQL Protocol for RDF")

do we need to refer to version number 1.1 here?
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 22:36:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:57 UTC