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

Re: does DAWG actually have time to do WSDL?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:12:16 -0600
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1111428736.8271.488.camel@localhost>

On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 12:44 -0500, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2005, at 12:05 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> > These actions are three weeks old with no movement. Maybe
> > WSDL is more of a schedule risk than we realized? Are there
> > other WG members that can help? Hugo, PLH, do you have time to help?
> >
> > ACTION Bijan: to propose text (story? etc.) to support WSDL requirement
> 
> Sent to Kendall.

OK, good to know there's progress... sooner you can share it with the WG
the better...

> > ACTION EricP: to review WSDL text proposal
> > ACTION KendallC: to add WSDL description of protocol to editor's draft,
> > propose to WG
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/ftf5-bos.html#item_03
> >
> > also...
> >
> > "For protocol, best guess is maybe 4 Apr for LC candidate."
> 
> Since this strikes me as an implausible date for the query language LC, 
> and I believe that Protocol is dependent on the query langauge, then I 
> find this an implausible date for protocol LC.

LC candidate; i.e. proposal from the editor to the WG, not from the WG
to the world. And all indications are that the QL editors are on
track for 31 Mar LC candidate.

> Things that need to be completed for protocol (IMHO):
> 	1) XML syntax for query language with XML Schema description (kendall 
> and I are working on that; of course, bit of a moving target as the 
> query language keeps changing, or potentially changing)

I don't see that as critical path. It's not in the charter,
not among our requirements or even objectives, and not among the
WG issues.

I'm not inclined to add it to the issues list. If there's support for
it as a requirement from more than one WG member, I suspect I'll
discover that in due course (perhaps as a comment on this week's
agenda) I haven't followed the thread closely, since, as I say, it's
not on our critical path.

> 	2) Sensible XML Schemable XML output format (I thought this was the 
> same as the xsi:type discussion, but I'm happy to raise a separate 
> issue).

That's on the editor's TODO list...
"ACTION DaveB: to consider use of xsi:dataType ala comment from Steer"

but there isn't a WG decision in the critical path.

> Once these are done, the rest is fairly straightforward.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
> 
> P.S. I don't understand why this was sent to w3c-archive

Well, I tried to use a little discretion with the action item
owners.

>  and not 
> public-rdf-dawg, which seems more appropriate, so I reply to that 
> instead of to w3c-archive.
>
> P.P.S. I thought protocol was on a staggered schedule. 4 days for 
> candidate LCs doesn't seem to be a staggering at all, in practice.

That plan is quoted from the Boston minutes. Plans change, of course...

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 21 March 2005 18:12:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:22 GMT