input to WSDL, since we're using it in SPARQL?

Ooops.

"This is a W3C Last Call Working Draft. [...]
 Comments can be sent until 4 October 2004."

 -- Web Services Description Language (WSDL) Version 2.0 Part 1:
    Core Language
    W3C Working Draft 3 August 2004
    http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-20040803/

Kendall, you said you're using WSDL in your protocol design,
right? So this WG should have reviewed WSDL.

I gather you've looked at it; is it OK? I note there are
some heavy-duty-looking objections cited from the SOTD.

At a glance, the features/properties stuff (not sure if
that's actually in the spec or just in the discussion around
the spec) looks like re-inventing RDF, to me. And the
extensibility mechanisms... how are those going to get mapped to RDF?

If it seems worthwhile, I might have a case for getting us into
their critical path based on the link from their charter to the
Semantic Web Activity.
 http://www.w3.org/2004/02/ws-desc-charter#internal

Anybody think I should persue that option?


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E