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

Re: agenda: RDF Data Access 29 Mar (confirmed)

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 21:49:49 -0500
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050329024949.GE2374@monkeyfist.com>

On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 10:35:20AM -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:

> and this one open:
>  ACTION KendallC: to add WSDL description of protocol to editor's draft,
> propose to WG.

Yes, this is still open. I had no 'net access from Friday morning till
Monday afternoon, about 2 hrs ago, which limited the progress I could

FWIW, I'm relatively happy -- pace a few details of representation in
WSDL 2.0 (how do you spell rdf:RDF as a return type, and how can you
have more than one possible return type) -- with the WSDL as it is for
describing the interfaces. The HTTP bindings need to be completed,
which I expect to do this week, and I intend to add SOAP bindings next
week. But I think the interfaces could be discussed with an eye toward
at least a straw poll from the WG.

> 6. privacy section for protocol spec
> ACTION EricP: propose "privacy considerations" for SPARQL protocol
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JanMar/0416.html
> not much response... everybody agrees?

I think it's pretty good and intend it to go into the protocol draft
ASAP. I've been concentrating on getting the WSDL right, then moving
to draft prose around it.

> 7. issue: wsdlAbstractProtocol, fromUnionQuery
>  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#wsdlAbstractProtocol
> ACTION KendallC: to add WSDL description of protocol to editor's draft,
> propose to WG.

This is repeated from above; same issue, afaik.

> progress:
> sparql-protocol.wsdl updated Kendall Clark (Monday, 21 March)
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JanMar/0382.html
> perhaps it addresses fromUnionQuery?
>  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#fromUnionQuery

IIRC, Andy mentioned some issue with that, but I don't recall the
details and can't find them in email.

> 8. issue: xmlAbstractSyntax
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#xmlAbstractSyntax
> Note new issue, progress, discuss expectations, recruit owner?

I intended these to be progress on this issue:


Hmm, that's a bit weak, actually. They *are* progress over the first
drafts I sent to the list, in that they accord with Andy's abstract
syntax and they are valid schema instances.

They are the same schema spelled 3 ways: XML Schema, Relax NG compact,
Relax NG XML.

Again, sorry that I didn't respond to this agenda sooner; but with my
home 'net access being down since Friday, and the holiday weekend, I
wasn't able to before now.

Kendall Clark
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2005 01:49:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:46 UTC