- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:18:40 -0500
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
> >Can you sketch a test case > > that > > we could use to tell the difference? > > Actually, after much deliberation, no, because "query" doesn't have any > defined operational semantics in the specification, so I can't test for > them. Oh? We have... "1. query operation SparqlQuery is the only interface of SPARQL Protocol. It contains one operation, query, which is used to convey a SPARQL query -- including a SPARQL query string and an RDF dataset -- and a query result between clients (requesters) and services (responders)." -- http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-protocol/ but I don't see anything that says that the results should match what the SPARQL query language space says they should be. I guess we should add that. > Besides, I fully expect that any test I devise will tell us that > GET is the operation being used because it comes along for the ride > whenever you turn URIs into data. That's my point, really. If the difference isn't observable on the wire, then this is a matter of specification style. I leave that for you to discuss with the editor (though he's bound to meet our requirement to have a WSDL description of the protocol http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-dawg-uc/#r3.14 ). > > > FWIW, my preference would be that the answer be "GET" and that "query" > > > be described as purely informative, i.e. not part of any contract. > > > > What would that look like in the spec? > > It would mean a pretty significant rewrite of section 2, since the > current assumption made there seems to be that the SPARQL spec defines > the operations (rather than any underlying application protocols), and > those operations have to be somehow bound to the protocol. I believe > that the SPARQL spec should avoid defining operations, or at least avoid > using them when binding to application protocols. > > Also, it would mean rewriting the WSDL to use http:GET as the operation > rather than "query". Here's some WSDL 2.0 written by Dave Orchard to > describe the Yahoo News services, as an example of this kind of WSDL; > > http://www.pacificspirit.com/Authoring/wsdl/YahooV1Search.wsdl When I look there, I find, among other things: <wsdl:operation ref="yahoowns:Search" so I don't see what you mean by 'use http:GET as the operation'. > Note though, that I'm not endorsing the use of WSDL at all - I > personally think it's underspecified and ambiguous, and only introduces > confusion, especially in the context of Web based services (i.e. not > "Web services"). I also don't think it helps describe even SOAP/HTTP > based services, which you mentioned you were planning to incorporate > into the spec at a later date. I think the WG considered concerns like that, though they didn't carry the day when we decided to adopt the WDSL requirement. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 24 June 2005 19:18:47 UTC