- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 12:44:42 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
On Mar 21, 2005, at 12:05 PM, Dan Connolly wrote: > These actions are three weeks old with no movement. Maybe > WSDL is more of a schedule risk than we realized? Are there > other WG members that can help? Hugo, PLH, do you have time to help? > > ACTION Bijan: to propose text (story? etc.) to support WSDL requirement Sent to Kendall. > ACTION EricP: to review WSDL text proposal > ACTION KendallC: to add WSDL description of protocol to editor's draft, > propose to WG > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/ftf5-bos.html#item_03 > > also... > > "For protocol, best guess is maybe 4 Apr for LC candidate." Since this strikes me as an implausible date for the query language LC, and I believe that Protocol is dependent on the query langauge, then I find this an implausible date for protocol LC. Things that need to be completed for protocol (IMHO): 1) XML syntax for query language with XML Schema description (kendall and I are working on that; of course, bit of a moving target as the query language keeps changing, or potentially changing) 2) Sensible XML Schemable XML output format (I thought this was the same as the xsi:type discussion, but I'm happy to raise a separate issue). Once these are done, the rest is fairly straightforward. Cheers, Bijan. P.S. I don't understand why this was sent to w3c-archive and not public-rdf-dawg, which seems more appropriate, so I reply to that instead of to w3c-archive. P.P.S. I thought protocol was on a staggered schedule. 4 days for candidate LCs doesn't seem to be a staggering at all, in practice.
Received on Monday, 21 March 2005 17:44:48 UTC