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

Re: sparql-protocol.wsdl updated

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:51:00 -0500
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050322025100.GC23327@monkeyfist.com>

On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 04:54:24PM -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
> 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?

This is WSDL 2, and I don't know of any such tools for WSDL
2. Apparently, though, there is a planned remapping of WSDL 2 back
into WSDL 1.1 -- but I'm very fuzzy on the details.

> >  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? 

They were in the previous version, and Andy and I had some discussion
of them on list, iirc.

> 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.

They are trivial to remove, if the WG doesn't support them. One nice
artifact of using WSDL. Plus no one has to implement them, but
services (like some of ours) which want to can implement them in a way
that any client can use them if it is written to look for them.

Seems like a win all the way around.

Kendall Clark
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2005 02:54:54 GMT

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