- From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:33:07 -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: <OFC1667BE3.94E90D4C-ON85257139.0053E3BC-85257139.00556A58@ca.ibm.com>
Dan, Is the query operation supposed to be safe? <operation name="query" pattern="http://www.w3.org/2006/01/wsdl/in-out"> You have two HTTP bindings for it, GET and POST. Doesn't this violate Web architecture? If the operation is safe, it should be bound to GET. If the operation is not safe, it should not be bound to GET. Seems like binding the same operation to both GET and POST should never happen. Or are you leaving it up to the user? Does the safety depend on the actual query, i.e. some querys do updates (I have read the SPARQL spec) ? If so, having both bindings does make sense.Thx. BTW, there is a WSDL extension attribute wsdlx:safe [1] You can use that to mark on operation that is known to be safe, in which case it would be bound to GET. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-adjuncts-20060106/#safety 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 Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 03/22/2006 03:54 AM 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 Subject RE: Belated comments on SPARQL Protocol for RDF 25 January 2006 LC WD 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 15:33:27 UTC