Re: Protocol changes

Another minor one:

Title:

SPARQL 1.1 Protocol for RDF 1.1
-->
SPARQL 1.1 Protocol for RDF


Apart from that, looks good!

best,
Axel

On 20 Oct 2009, at 08:13, Alexandre Passant wrote:

> HI,
>
> 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 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/
>   -> same issue (Status of this document)
> - Some note may be added in Security regarding updates
>
> Best,
>
> Alex.
>
> On 20 Oct 2009, at 06:59, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Axel.
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2009/sparql/docs/protocol-1.1/ 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
> >> 2.1.2.1 XXUPDATEXX In Message
> >> 2.1.2.2 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
> >> *
> >> 2.2.3.1 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 <http://apassant.net/alex> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2009 07:27:51 UTC