W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@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 03:54:26 -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: <OFF8CF6602.798207A2-ON85257139.002DE7A5-85257139.0030EA66@ca.ibm.com>

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

Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
www-ws-desc@w3.org, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
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)

In particular, this WSDL file:

 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 08:54:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:23 UTC