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

Re: agenda: RDF Data Access 30Aug

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:46:07 -0400
Message-Id: <eaac8426bf9897ae1b332b1e5d84666c@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: kendall@monkeyfist.com

On Aug 29, 2005, at 12:57 PM, Kendall Clark wrote:
[snip]
>   To be a compliant SPARQL Protocol service, a service MUST support the
>   SparqlQuery interface, and it MUST support either the HTTP bindings  
> or the
>   SOAP bindings or both the HTTP and SOAP bindings as described in
>   <sparql-protocol-query.wsdl>. A SPARQL Protocol service MAY support  
> other
>   interfaces as well.

So, question: do we want the HTTP binding to be required? One general  
advantage, I think, of WSDL like descriptions is that it, IMHO,  
obviates the need for specifying conformance levels. Or requirements,  
even. You can make clear what your service supports (by and large)  
directly.

So, you support the Sparql HTTP protocol. Great! Just have an endpoint  
which points to that binding. You support the SOAP one, similar. You  
support both, easy peasy. You support something altogether different?  
Add your own binding.

Isn't this the whole point of using machine readable descriptions? Why  
do we need Yet Another Name to indicate further levels of conformance?

There may be some market value in having a name, but I somehow doubt  
it. Interopt isn't really enhanced, is it?

Also, David Orchard mucked around with more elaborate HTTP binding  
bits. I think this is a bit dated but interesting:

   
http://www.pacificspirit.com/Authoring/ 
wsdlArtistWSDL2uriformencoding.html

One might also ask him to review, given his expertise.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Monday, 29 August 2005 19:46:25 GMT

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