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

[comments] Note about WSDL2 Binding

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 22:05:24 -0400
Message-Id: <B3E9154E-B4CA-4A7E-863E-4DA33D4F1B0D@w3.org>
To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org

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. The issues
     related to describing SPARQL Protocol for RDF with WSDL2 are
     summarized in this email message and in the thread that follows
     it. In particular, the whttp:outputSerialization attribute is
     required in WSDL 2.0, and is required to have a single Internet
     Media Type as its value. However, in the service design described
     herein, the query operation may return XML, RDF/XML or an
     equivalent graph serialization IMT. Second, WSDL2 does not allow
     whttp:inputSerialization to have a value "application/x-www- 
urlencoded"
     when the value a binding style is
     "http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl/style/iri". That is, roughly,
     WSDL2 does not allow us to describe the service design for query's
     POST binding we prefer, which is to POST application/x-www- 
urlencoded
     to the endpoint. Third, whttp:faultSerialization is also required
     and required to have as its value a single Internet Media Type.
     Similarly to the case with whttp:outputSerialization, DAWG has
     designed a service where the value of the fault serialization
     is implementation-dependent and cannot be represented by a single
     XML Schema type. DAWG acknowledges the risk inherent in describing
     its protocol in an illegal variant of WSDL 2.0.)
     ]]]

-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2005 02:06:03 GMT

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