RE: Belated comments on SPARQL Protocol for RDF 25 January 2006 LC WD

Dan,

Would you like to contribute this to our test suite?

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca



Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
03/21/2006 07:10 PM

To
Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
cc
www-ws-desc@w3.org, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Subject
RE: Belated comments on SPARQL Protocol for RDF 25 January 2006 LC      WD







On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 10:32 -0800, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> The WSDL WG discussed the issues Hugo found below.  See inline.

We passed the Woden validator today.

See details:

wsdl fun (re: ACTION: LeeF to try SPARQL WSDL files with Woden
validator, report results.) Lee Feigenbaum (Tuesday, 21 March)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/thread.html#msg469


In particular, this WSDL file:

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/proto-wd/sparql-protocol-query.wsdl
 1.18 2006/03/21 19:18:07

I hope it's good enough. We did not change maxOccurs nor the name thing,
but indications I'm getting are that the WSD WG is OK with that.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E