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

Re: WSDL implications

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:35:51 -0500
To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1119983751.5150.186.camel@localhost>

On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 18:05 +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> The Schedule of the Web Services Description Working Group is:
> 
> Second Last Call / June 2005
> Candidate Recommendation / October 2005
> Proposed Recommendation / Early 2006
> 
> In feedback I have received from (HP) people who work more closely with the 
> current toolsets for WSDL than I do, it was noted that the change to supporting 
> WSDL 1.1 to include 2.0 is not necessary going to be fast or uniform.
> 
> How hard would it be to add a non-normative translation to WSDL 1.1 just for the 
> SOAP form?

Leaving all the procedural matters aside, ...

I wrote some code to convert our WSDL 2.0 to WSDL 1.1 because the only
tools I could find were WSDL 1.1

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/proto-wd/wsdldg.xsl

I sent mail about it a while ago...

wsdldg.xsl converts our WSDL 2.0 to WSDL 1.1; hunt for WSDL tools
continues
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005AprJun/0075

>   Are there features of WSDL 2.0 being used that preclude this?

I didn't find any.

> 	Andy
> 
> 
> 
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2005 18:35:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:23 GMT