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 13:21:58 -0600
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1111432919.8271.507.camel@localhost>

On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 13:27 -0500, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2005, at 1:12 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:
> [snip]
> > 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.
> 
> Hmm. Perhaps. It's not so clear to me.
> 
> >> 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 think it implicit in using WSDL.

Our discussion was fairly explicit to the contrary:

    <xs:element name='queryString' type='xs:string'/> <!-- in, e.g.,
SPARQL syntax -->

 -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/ftf5-bos.html#item_03


> > 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.
> 
> Well, I've argued why it is important to the protocal document, at 
> length. I've been sick so I've not replied to the very end of the 
> thread, but I saw nothing directed substantially to my arguments.

Silence doesn't imply agreement... especially for things that
aren't on our agenda.


> >> 	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.
> 
> I would like to raise having a fully W3C Schemable XML syntax for 
> results, then.

As I say, I'm not inclined to add it to the issues list unless/until
there's more support.

> >> Once these are done, the rest is fairly straightforward.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Bijan.

-- 
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 19:22:01 GMT

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