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

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

From: Yoshio FUKUSHIGE <fuku@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 21:40:08 +0900
Message-ID: <001d01c55add$8fcbfd70$040ba8c0@delldell>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: "DAWG Mailing List" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

>> 4. Close serviceDescription, with the comment that Yoshio has an
>>    outstanding ACTION related to the serviceDescription issue, and I'm
>>    not sure of the propriety of closing an issue till all its birds
>>    have come home to roost.
> Hmm... perhaps it is time to postpone this issue. I was hoping
> to do something with it in the 1st release, but the design hasn't
> matured as fast as, say, the sort design.

I'm sorry, but I agree to postpone that issue.

I also think it should be described in a separate documents,
a separate recommendation if it should be normative,
or a separae note if it should be informative.

I'm not sure how service specific, or SPARQL specific features
should be described.
They could be described within the WSDL document, or could be
described in a different (rdf) document (using SADDLE?) which can be 
linked from the WSDL document.
I'm not sure which way to go.

And if we are going to use RDF in description, some vocabulary
could be needed to describe the Web Servicy aspects, such as
However, the mapping of WSDL to RDF is not yet described by
the WSDLWG, ... oh, they updated the Primer[1] !!
... Hmm, there seem to remain several issues, though.

Anyway, I think it's too early to say concre things at least about SADDLE,
and it won't be too late to do so after a while.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-wsdl20-primer-20050510/

Received on Tuesday, 17 May 2005 20:49:56 UTC

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