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

Re: agenda: RDF Data Access 30Aug

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:03:12 -0400
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050829220312.GI4806@monkeyfist.com>

On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 03:46:07PM -0400, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> 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.

There are two issues, I think:

1. whether a service supports SOAP or HTTP
2. that the service implements the normative bindings we specify

So I was trying to say something like this: if you support SOAP, you have to
do so with *these bindings*, and if you support HTTP, you have to do so with
*these* bindings. But that's different from requiring support of SOAP or
HTTP or both.

I have no idea where the WG is w/r/t to requiring SOAP support. I was just
trying to craft language that says it's *these* SOAP bindings and not any

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

What's the other name?

Received on Monday, 29 August 2005 22:03:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:48 UTC