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 08:54:44 UTC