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: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:47:40 +0000
Message-ID: <423FE9BC.1070507@hp.com>
To: kendall@monkeyfist.com
CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

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.
> 
> 
>>> 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.

It was not support for update operations though.  Indeed, I was trying to 
understand where they came from.

	Andy

> 
> 
>>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 09:48:09 GMT

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