- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:10:05 -0600
- To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
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 00:10:24 UTC