Re: Protocol changes


A few minor comments as well rom my side (follow-up of ACTION-103, I  
didn't realize the protocol doc was sent before)

Also OK for FPWD besides:
- This protocol was developed by the W3C RDF Data Access Working Group  
(DAWG), -> should mention the new WG as well (Abstract section)
- Link for "SPARQL Working Group" is to 
  -> same issue (Status of this document)
- Some note may be added in Security regarding updates



On 20 Oct 2009, at 06:59, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> Thanks, Axel.
> now reflects all of  
> the changes suggested in your note, and it should be ready for FPWD  
> modulo xml-spec fixes and pubrules checks.
> Lee
> Axel Polleres wrote:
>> 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
>> Axel
>> ===========================================
>> Details:
>> 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.
>> 3)
>> 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  
>> fixing
>> 2.1.3 XXUPDATEXX In Message
>> 2.1.4 XXUPDATEXX Out Message
>> should be
>> XXUPDATEXX In Message
>> XXUPDATEXX Out Message
>> etc.
>> 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
>> 5)
>> This document (which refers to itself as "SPARQL Protocol for RDF")
>> do we need to refer to version number 1.1 here?

Dr. Alexandre Passant
Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Galway
:me owl:sameAs <> .

Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2009 07:13:55 UTC