W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: does DAWG actually have time to do WSDL?

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:59:21 -0500
Message-Id: <ff420e88ca89dc1ec2f890d35349756d@isr.umd.edu>
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>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>

On Mar 21, 2005, at 2:21 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 13:27 -0500, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> 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.
> Our discussion was fairly explicit to the contrary:
>     <xs:element name='queryString' type='xs:string'/> <!-- in, e.g.,
> SPARQL syntax -->

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that had force instead of being merely a 
straw proposal for discussion. People were having enough trouble with 
the WSDL (which was novel to most) that I didn't think it was a good 
point to raise then.

I raise it now. That essentially makes the input untyped which is very 
very unfortunate for a slew of reasons that I have enumerated 
elsewhere. It looks especially odd given that we have an XML output 

One thing I may not have mentioned is that it make useful service 
composition very difficult to impossible.

>  -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/ftf5-bos.html#item_03
>>> 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.
> Silence doesn't imply agreement... especially for things that
> aren't on our agenda.

I didn't say, nor did I imply, it did. To be clear, I'm unsure what 
else I am to do to advance this point. I guess I need to get someone to 
show some support on list?

>>>> 	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.
> As I say, I'm not inclined to add it to the issues list unless/until
> there's more support.
Why? As a working group member, I am raising this as an issue. 
Actually, I believe that that is very similar to the xsi:type issue. So 
you have an external and an internal person raising this issue.

Or, if you prefer, you can wait until we've completed the work with a 
fully fleshed out proposal.

I'll raise another small complexity: The psuedo-wsdl tried to have a 
union type of a (presumably) w3c schema type and a relax ng type (for 
the output, to capture bindings and rdf graphs). This would require an 
extension to WSDL as it stands. One possible solution is to back 
translate everything to relax. Another would  be to accept a less 
restrictive syntax for RDF/XML, which may be more acceptible, given 
that if you accept RDF/XML at all, you have to do a lot of work outside 
of any schema language I know of. *AND* that people accepting RDF/XML 
accept that.

Bijan Parsia.
Received on Monday, 21 March 2005 19:59:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:33 UTC