W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: protocol draft updated, open issue proposals (wsdlAbstractProtocol)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 13:03:39 -0500
To: kendall@monkeyfist.com
Cc: DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1116266619.11315.131.camel@localhost>

On Sat, 2005-05-14 at 14:24 -0400, Kendall Clark wrote:
>      $Revision: 1.36 $ of $Date: 2005/05/14 18:08:45 $
>      http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/proto-wd/

> 2. Close wsdlAbstractProtocol, which I own, with the comment that I
>    consider the protocol draft as of 1.36 and
>    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/sparql-protocol-query.wsdl to
>    satisfy the issue.
>    (Note: sparql-protocol-query.wsdl isn't *complete*, yet, as details
>    of the HTTP bindings have to be finalized and there are some issues
>    about the <service>, but these do not impinge on the *abstract*
>    protocol description.)

I agree that <service> can be left aside, but what other
HTTP binding details are missing? I can't think of any.

I'd like to have most of the details of the HTTP binding in hand when
I put the question. Perhaps I chose the name of the issue poorly,
but I mean for a decision on this issue to specify 
the HTTP query parameter names and describe them using WSDL.

I'm considering arguing for SparqlGraph and SparqlBindings
interfaces, and perhaps SparqlQueryAndTransform ...
but I'll do that separately, with suggested text and such,
if at all.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
see you at XTech in Amsterdam 24-27 May?
Received on Monday, 16 May 2005 20:24:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:47 UTC