Re: does DAWG actually have time to do WSDL?

On Mar 21, 2005, at 1:12 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:
[snip]
> LC candidate; i.e. proposal from the editor to the WG, not from the WG
> to the world. And all indications are that the QL editors are on
> track for 31 Mar LC candidate.

Hmm. Perhaps. It's not so clear to me.

>> 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)
>
> I don't see that as critical path. It's not in the charter,
> not among our requirements or even objectives, and not among the
> WG issues.

I think it implicit in using WSDL.

> I'm not inclined to add it to the issues list. If there's support for
> it as a requirement from more than one WG member, I suspect I'll
> discover that in due course (perhaps as a comment on this week's
> agenda) I haven't followed the thread closely, since, as I say, it's
> not on our critical path.

Well, I've argued why it is important to the protocal document, at 
length. I've been sick so I've not replied to the very end of the 
thread, but I saw nothing directed substantially to my arguments.

>> 	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).
>
> That's on the editor's TODO list...
> "ACTION DaveB: to consider use of xsi:dataType ala comment from Steer"
>
> but there isn't a WG decision in the critical path.

I would like to raise having a fully W3C Schemable XML syntax for 
results, then.

>> Once these are done, the rest is fairly straightforward.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bijan.
>>
>> P.S. I don't understand why this was sent to w3c-archive
>
> Well, I tried to use a little discretion with the action item
> owners.

Sorry, I have trouble distinguishing between one public mailing list 
and another at the W3C, at least for discretion purposes. Be that as it 
may.

>>  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.
>
> That plan is quoted from the Boston minutes. Plans change, of course...

It seems we need some serious telecon time to resolve some of these 
issues, at least of understanding. While I did say I was not going to 
regularly attend telecons, I also said I would make myself available 
for discussion as appropriate. Unfortunately, the next two weeks are 
rather tight for me re: tuesdays.

Also, it really was my understanding that there'd be more staggering 
between the query and the protocol. If the absolute dates of the query 
haven't changed, then 4 days just seems to not be a staggering. If the 
query has slipped it's absolute dates, then protocol should too (in 
this case).

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Monday, 21 March 2005 18:27:11 UTC