Comments on the query draft spec

["Nicholas Crossley" <nick_crossley@us.ibm.com>]

Here are some comments on the current query
draft specification.

Section 5:

I've added a comment to the existing
issue 102, to which David has already responded, so I think we have a fix
for that.

Restate "OSLC properties that have
a oslc:queryable
"false"^^xsd:booleanvalue cannot be specified in oslc.where."
to be a conformance clause - perhaps:

Servers MUST return an error if a
query uses oslc.where terms for properties that have a oslc:queryable
"false"^^xsd:booleanvalue; see section 10.

And then this statement probably belongs
in section 6 on using a query capability, or in section 9.2 about oslc.where.

Section 6:

The conformance clause QUERY-9 has some
missing words:

"For a successful operation, the
response status code mustbe 200 OKfor a non-paged result, or for an OSLC paged result. [query-9]"

should be:

"For a successful operation, the
response status code mustbe 200 OKfor a non-paged result, or 302
Found or 303
See Other for an OSLC paged result.
[query-9]"

(and what about 307? Should the above
be less prescriptive and just say 'a 2xx or 3xx response'?)

In the parameter table, the description
of oslc.orderBy has a conformance statement that is not marked as such:

If supported, servers shouldinclude the oslc:orderpseudo-property, and for a paged response, order the pages so that the first page contains the lowest ordered members, and the last page contains the highest ordered members.

Section 7:

A question on this requirement:

The container mustbe a Linked Data Platform Container (LDPC) referencing each member
resource found by the query. The response shouldinclude a Linkheader that describes the type of LDPC returned. This provides compatibility
with OSLC Core 3.0 and its wider use of LDPCs. [LDP]
[query-14]

The MUST here will make all OSLC 2 servers
non-compliant, since they do not currently follow all the rules of LDPCs,
such as the mandatory link headers required by the LDP spec itself (despite
the SHOULD in the second sentence above). Given that SHOULD in the second
sentence, should the MUST in the first sentence be a SHOULD?

Section 8:

See Core
Issue 102. Query should not require
use of oslc:postBody if LDP paging is used.