Re: [comments] Note about WSDL2 Binding

On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 22:05 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote:
> SPARQL Protocol for RDF
> W3C Working Draft 14 September 2005
> The explanation here is far to be satisfying. I would dedicate a  
> section to it and not relate on an email thread. If you really want  
> to justify your position, you have to explain the Pros and Cons. I  
> would still feel unconfortable with it but at least it would be  
> better than only a read message with a single paragraph listing too  
> fast making 3 statements.
> Don't forget we are writing specifications for a user who is an  
> implementer. It's not a forum for discussion.
>      [[[
>      (Note: The bindings shown here are not legal according
>      to the latest draft of WSDL 2.0 recommendation.

You might be interested in some recent progress, including
re-opening a WG issue:

In particular, re limitations of {http output serialization},
it looks like there are updates to WSDL in progress that
better match SPARQL.

There are one or two related issues where we're still working out the
details with the WSD WG. We'll let you know how it turns out in due

Dan Connolly, W3C
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Monday, 7 November 2005 19:16:16 UTC