- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:40:32 +0100
- To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On 26/09/12 01:13, Arthur Keen wrote: > Having a standard way to report errors makes sense in general and would > help newcomers (like Algebraix) in the market, by increasing > interoperability with existing client libraries and applications. > However we agree that it would be risky to add it to the spec right at > the end of the process and we do not wish to hold up the > standardization process for SPARQL 1.1, however we ask that error > messages be considered in subsequent standardization activity beyond > SPARQL 1.1 The issue I see is that SPARQL exists in a wider context of standards and code. HTTP is widely (!) deployed and well understood. Many client-side toolkits exist to work with it. Reuse is good. Adding additional mechanisms is good to make the system better for one purpose (SPARQLing) but comes with a cost of making general web frameworks toolkits less suitable for app building and adds to web developer overload. This cost is something we all (self included) tend to underplay when we are in the midst of a technical design. Andy
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 11:41:04 UTC