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

Re: WSDL implications

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:07:20 +0100
Message-ID: <42C2D548.7040805@hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>



Dan Connolly wrote:
> 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

Thanks - I tried the XSLT script but got zero bytes.  It's probably my use of 
Saxon on an XSLT1 script or some such local technology problem.

The attachement was useful - I had some success with that with Axis1 and Axis2 
until I got to the binding (absence thereof).

	Andy

> 
> 
>>  Are there features of WSDL 2.0 being used that preclude this?
> 
> 
> I didn't find any.
> 
> 
>>	Andy
>>
>>
>>
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2005 17:08:50 GMT

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