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

Re: does DAWG actually have time to do WSDL?

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:29:13 +0000
Message-ID: <423F2E99.3020603@hp.com>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

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:


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.


> 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

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