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

Re: sparql-protocol.wsdl updated

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:14:36 +0000
Message-ID: <423F393C.5010003@hp.com>
To: kendall@monkeyfist.com
Cc: DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

Kendall Clark wrote:
> Les chiens,
> 
> I've updated
>      
>      http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/proto-wd/sparql-protocol.wsdl
> 
> <!-- $Id: sparql-protocol.wsdl,v 1.4 2005/03/21 20:00:34 kclark Exp $
> 
> I consider this to be nearly complete w/r/t the "abstract" portion of
> the protocol; that is, the interfaces, their types, operations, and
> faults. The changes include importing the results format, declaring
> schema types for "the rdf dataset", for some operation response types
> (graph creation & deletion), and for "query", which is a string plus
> an rdf dataset (though, now that I look at it again, I realize that
> the rdf-dataset bit isn't quite right)>

         <xs:element name="rdf-dataset">
           <xs:complexType>
             <xs:sequence>
               <xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" ref="sl:uri"></xs:element>
             </xs:sequence>
           </xs:complexType>
         </xs:element>


Checking first: are those "sl:uri" referring to graphs?  Not datasets 
themselves?

Could we enable the specification of the background graph as well as a 
number of named graphs?  A single background graph would be enough but if 
there is more then the semantics are of an RDF merge.

I like the one-request-per SOAP message.  Leave multiple request handling to 
the protocol subsystem by making several requests and having it sort out the 
details.

	Andy


> 
> It is less complete w/r/t HTTP and SOAP bindings.
> 
> Kendall Clark
> 
Received on Monday, 21 March 2005 21:15:10 GMT

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