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

Re: sparql-protocol.wsdl updated

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:28:38 -0500
Message-Id: <3b083581cf326641d2b5e05350616d7f@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: kendall@monkeyfist.com

On Mar 21, 2005, at 9:51 PM, Kendall Clark wrote:
> 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.
[snip]

I'm not sure how far along it is, but there is the Eclipse plugin:
	http://www.eclipse.org/wsvt/

As for 1.1, it's definitely worth supporting, and I think it won't be 
hard to generate useful 1.1 WSDLs from our 2.0, even if there isn't an 
official mapping. The main difference is the lack of interface 
inheritance, so we'll have to do cut and paste reuse.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2005 03:28:44 GMT

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