Re: Update

On 12/10/15 15:17, james anderson wrote:
>
>> On 2015-10-12, at 15:54, Karima Rafes <karima.rafes@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:karima.rafes@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> That sounds like a problem with how some developers are interacting 
>>> with SPARQL endpoints, not with the SPARQL protocol spec. When 
>>> staying within the spec, there are lots of conformant 
>>> implementations that can all be used properly with content 
>>> negotiation. In these cases, the SPARQL Protocol spec is “enough”.
>>
>>> the protocol permits those variations for good reason.
>>> it also provides means to discover the respective capabilities.
>>> what is missing?
>>
>> Ok if I resume, if the developers have to use a different code for
>> each triplestore... it's for a good reason...
>> I thought the aim was to become interoperable. Sorry ;)
>
> the goal is to afford interoperability.

+1

> a failure to recognize an “update” argument would be just that, a 
> “failure”, not a variation.
+1

> at the same time there can be reasons to distinguish the two service 
> endpoints.
> authentication realms is the most obvious which comes to mind.
>
>>
>> When you will be agree on one clear protocol for SPARQL,
>
> it is “one clear protocol”. the protocol permits two distinct end points.
> the protocol provides means to discover the capabilities of those two 
> endpoints.
> for example, provided with a declaration of the endpoints for a 
> service, a harness which intends to test federation knows that it will 
> perform query requests only (as of 1.1) and can rely on the respective 
> service description to decide which endpoint to use.
>
> how is that not sufficient?
>
>> I will be
>> able to help you on the SPARQL test suite because for the moment, I
>> have no the time to develop a new patch for all interpretations of
>> each editor.
>
> there is but one interpretation.
> it just happens to include alternatives.

which does not include "output="

> if a test suite intends to verify conformance to the protocols 
> described in the recommendations, it may be necessary for it to follow 
> them.

+1

And the claim "The soon-to-be reference in triplestore benckmarking" is 
completely inaccurate.

On whose authority is it a "reference"?  Not W3C, the owners of the spec.

     Andy

>
> best regards, for berlin,
>
> ---
> james anderson | james@dydra.com <mailto:james@dydra.com> | 
> http://dydra.com
>