W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > November 2005

Re: Multiple binding of an operation (was Re: Attempted review of SPARQL Protocol LC Draft)

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 12:14:21 +0100
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Cc: paul.downey@bt.com, jmarsh@microsoft.com, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <20051104111421.GH22734@w3.org>
* Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org> [2005-11-04 11:55+0100]
> On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 11:51 +0100, Hugo Haas wrote:
> > > I cannot think at this moment of any distinguishing characteristic of
> > > these same-named binding operations that can readily be used in the
> > > component designators, though. And I thought that different bindings of
> > > one operation can be done in different bindings, and these can then be
> > > provided by the same endpoint, so the SPARQL WSDL can be refactored and
> > > we can (again?) forbid multiple different binding operation components
> > > with the same name.
> > 
> > I'm wondering if this means that we are going to require in this case
> > a name property for binding operations to distinguish them.
> 
> Wouldn't this be confusing? 
> 
> interface/operation name="getStockQuote"
> binding/operation ref="getStockQuote" name="somethingElse"?
> 
> Instead, I suggest again that we require up to one binding operation for
> a single interface operation, as it seems that two different bindings
> with the same endpoint address would do the job equally well for SPARQL.
> 
> In simple words - if you want to bind an operation twice and
> differently, use two bindings.

I prefer this approach too.

Cheers,

Hugo

-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/

Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 11:14:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:37 GMT