- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 09:09:28 -0400
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 8/2/2011 4:35 AM, Steve Harris wrote: > I think it's probably harmless in the grand scheme of things. OK, if this is consensus then that's good enough for me. > Other than direct POSTing (which some toolkits may have trouble > with?) it's not that tricky to support, even to just return a "method > not implemented" error. Yeah, I'm mainly concerned that clients start POSTing directly, and that that's not widely implemented... Lee > - Steve > > On 2011-08-02, at 03:08, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > >> In SPARQL 1.0, conformance to the SPARQL Protocol required that an >> implementation implement the abstract query interface, and that if >> the implementation implemented the HTTP or SOAP bindings to that >> interface, that that be done in the manner specified in the >> document. (See >> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-protocol/#conformance) >> >> In the SPARQL 1.1 Protocol, we have these changes: >> >> * Added an update operation * Removed an abstract definition of the >> operation * Removed SOAP bindings * Added the ability to directly >> POST a query or update, in addition to via HTTP GET& POST >> >> So what should conformance be? >> >> Suggestion: >> >> * Implement either the query or the update operation or both * For >> any implemented operations, implement it in at least one of the >> ways normatively defined in the document >> >> This feels to me to be in the spirit of the SPARQL 1.0 Protocol... >> that said, I'm not thrilled with it since this is a protocol and >> this gives you 5 different things you can implement to be a >> conformant SPARQL 1.1 Protocol implementation -- that doesn't seem >> great to be for interoperability. >> >> What do you think? >> >> Lee >> >
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 13:10:12 UTC