Re: does DAWG actually have time to do WSDL?

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> 
> 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, 

There should be a draft for the working group by March 31.

You can see it the current state at:

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/

Given the size of the doc, there is a limit to how much will change by March 31!

> 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).

Could you pull out what dependences you see that there are on the QL from 
the protocol?  I don't see any (I don't put the output format under QL as 
it's a separate document).

With such a list, I'll make sure that these items are covered soon, if they 
are not already done.  The QL is pretty static except for the syntax and the 
protocol either takes a string and/or will use an XML form so that does not 
seem to be a dependency.

I'll email something on an abstract syntax ASAP.


We moved the FROM/WITH out of the QL so the QL has a dependency on protocol.

	Andy

> 
> 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 20:29:50 UTC