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

In the picture on page 2 of
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swls-ws/2004Sep/att-0030/W3C_Workshop_Semantic_Web_for_Life_Science_-_position.pdf
we assumed a feed forward path from bottom-left corner (with SPARQL) to 
top-right corner (with WSDL 2.0)
and now try to work out some tangible test cases...

-- 
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/




Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Sent by: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org
21/10/2004 01:01

 
        To:     Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
        cc:     RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Hugo Haas 
<hugo@w3.org>, (bcc: Jos De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER)
        Subject:        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