W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > March 2006

RE: Belated comments on SPARQL Protocol for RDF 25 January 2006 LC WD

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:33:07 -0500
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC1667BE3.94E90D4C-ON85257139.0053E3BC-85257139.00556A58@ca.ibm.com>
Dan,

Is the query operation supposed to be safe? 

<operation name="query" pattern="http://www.w3.org/2006/01/wsdl/in-out">

You have two HTTP bindings for it, GET and POST. Doesn't this violate Web 
architecture? If the operation is safe, it should be bound to GET. If the 
operation is not safe, it should not be bound to GET. Seems like binding 
the same operation to both GET and POST should never happen. Or are you 
leaving it up to the user? Does the safety depend on the actual query, 
i.e. some querys do updates (I have read the SPARQL spec) ? If so, having 
both bindings does make sense.Thx.

BTW, there is a WSDL extension attribute wsdlx:safe [1] You can use that 
to mark on operation that is known to be safe, in which case it would be 
bound to GET.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-adjuncts-20060106/#safety

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca



Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
03/22/2006 03:54 AM

To
Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
cc
Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, 
www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Subject
RE: Belated comments on SPARQL Protocol for RDF 25 January 2006 LC      WD







Dan, 

Would you like to contribute this to our test suite? 

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca 


Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
03/21/2006 07:10 PM 


To
Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com> 
cc
www-ws-desc@w3.org, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org 
Subject
RE: Belated comments on SPARQL Protocol for RDF 25 January 2006 LC WD









On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 10:32 -0800, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> The WSDL WG discussed the issues Hugo found below.  See inline.

We passed the Woden validator today.

See details:

wsdl fun (re: ACTION: LeeF to try SPARQL WSDL files with Woden
validator, report results.) Lee Feigenbaum (Tuesday, 21 March)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/thread.html#msg469


In particular, this WSDL file:

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/proto-wd/sparql-protocol-query.wsdl
1.18 2006/03/21 19:18:07

I hope it's good enough. We did not change maxOccurs nor the name thing,
but indications I'm getting are that the WSD WG is OK with that.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 22 March 2006 15:33:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:39 GMT