W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > March 2006

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

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:32:03 -0500
To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF6AC5D3C0.B439BCAE-ON85257139.00659780-85257139.0065CE6B@ca.ibm.com>
Kendall,

You say the operation is safe at the <interface> level which is 
independent of the <binding>, i.e. GET or POST.

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



Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
03/22/2006 01:07 PM

To
Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
cc
Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, 
public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org, 
www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Subject
Re: Belated comments on SPARQL Protocol for RDF 25 January 2006 LC      WD








On Mar 22, 2006, at 11:34 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> I assumed we were using that. Kendall, are we not?
> Hmm.

I think we were, but it got dropped at some point. I was confused for 
a while about whether it was the default for a GET binding, and then 
we added POST, so I wasn't sure what to do. I'm still not especially 
sure. :>

The operation is safe when bound to GET, obviously, and it's actually 
also safe when bound to POST, but I don't know if you can say *that* 
in WSDL.

Advice from the WSDL folks would be really helpful on this point. :>

Cheers,
Kendall
Received on Wednesday, 22 March 2006 18:32:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:50 GMT