W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > November 2005

Re: [comments] Note about WSDL2 Binding

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:16:12 -0600
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1131390972.7185.315.camel@dirk>

On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 22:05 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote:
> SPARQL Protocol for RDF
> W3C Working Draft 14 September 2005
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-rdf-sparql-protocol-20050914/
> 
> 
> The explanation here is far to be satisfying. I would dedicate a  
> section to it and not relate on an email thread. If you really want  
> to justify your position, you have to explain the Pros and Cons. I  
> would still feel unconfortable with it but at least it would be  
> better than only a read message with a single paragraph listing too  
> fast making 3 statements.
> 
> Don't forget we are writing specifications for a user who is an  
> implementer. It's not a forum for discussion.
> 
>      [[[
>      (Note: The bindings shown here are not legal according
>      to the latest draft of WSDL 2.0 recommendation.

You might be interested in some recent progress, including
re-opening a WG issue:

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#wsdlAbstractProtocol

In particular, re limitations of {http output serialization},
it looks like there are updates to WSDL in progress that
better match SPARQL.
see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2005Oct/thread#19

There are one or two related issues where we're still working out the
details with the WSD WG. We'll let you know how it turns out in due
course.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 7 November 2005 19:16:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:49 GMT