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

Re: sparql-protocol.wsdl updated

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:54:24 -0600
To: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1111445664.8271.589.camel@localhost>

On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 15:10 -0500, 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.

Cool... I'm interested in WSDL tools that do cool stuff with it...
are there WSDL validators and such?

Have you tried it out in any tools?

>  The changes include importing the results format, declaring
> schema types for "the rdf dataset", for some operation response types
> (graph creation & deletion),

hmm... graph creation and deletion? 

we decided which interfaces and operations in Boston...

  RESOLVED: that the SPARQL WSDL description shall have 3 interfaces
  (SPARQLQuery and SPARQLDiscovery and SPARQLQueryAndDiscovery),
  each with one operation

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

The decision is a little funky, because it depends on a decision
that I thought we had made earlier but didn't. Still...
I suspect you're more likely to get consensus by sticking
to just those three.

>  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)>
> 
> It is less complete w/r/t HTTP and SOAP bindings.
> 
> Kendall Clark
-- 
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 22:54:26 GMT

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