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

Re: WSDL 2.0 issues

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:10:07 -0400
Message-Id: <0ee2ebe564a143d1dfb3bb69f30c161c@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, kendall@monkeyfist.com
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>

On Aug 16, 2005, at 9:56 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:

>
> On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 14:34 -0400, Kendall Clark wrote:
>> Dan, et. al.,
>>
>> I've raised some questions about WSDL 2.0, particularly about some of  
>> its
>> restrictions on serialization types: for inputs outputs, and faults.  
>> The
>> problems, in a nutshell, are:
>>
>> 1. we don't have any other reason to split the SparqlQuery query  
>> operation
>> into separate operations. It's one operation, from out point of view,  
>> that
>> may return application/sparql-results+xml or application/rdf+xml.  
>> But, near
>> as I can tell, WSDL 2.0 requires an operation to return one and only  
>> one
>> output serialization type. I think that's unnecessarily restrictive  
>> and
>> means there's a class of useful web services that can't be described.
>
> Yes; it seems there's a requirements mismatch.
>
> Evidently the SPARQL protocol isn't a Web Service, because Web Services
> have all their I/O in XML:

eh.

> "Definition: A Web Service is a software application identified by a  
> URI
> [IETF RFC 2396], whose interfaces and binding are capable of being
> defined, described and discovered by XML artifacts and supports direct
> interactions with other software applications using XML based messages
> via Internet-based protocols".
>  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-ws-desc-reqs-20021028/
>
> I don't think I had thought that thru when we adopted

First, that's not a view supported by action of the group, e.g.,:
	http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/ 
altschemalangs.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8

Second, "capable" and "supports" are such weasel words...I'd suggest  
that you conform to it already (just by having RDF/XML and XML results  
format for return). It doesn't saw that *all* the messages have to be  
XML :)

> 3.14 WSDL Protocol
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-dawg-uc/#r3.14
>
> Hmm... maybe time to reconsider.
[snip]

Hope not. If WSDL 2.0 can't describe SPARQL usefully, there's a problem  
on one side or the other, I firmly believe. LC for both sides is a good  
time to resolve this.

Re: The multiple output issue, what I understand the WSDL working group  
position (and what I capture d in the Alt Schema Language document,  
refed above) is that having this sort of language spanning Union type  
was best handled at the schema language level. I.e., if you really  
should define a new, very simple (in some sense) schema languages that  
allows such mixed definition. (In fact, that's what you are asking the  
WSDL group to do.)

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2005 14:10:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:24 GMT