- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:14:17 -0500
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: kendall@monkeyfist.com, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On Mar 21, 2005, at 4:03 PM, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > Bijan Parsia wrote: [snip] >> I guess it's more a sense from comments I've seen. Significant >> features and questions of semantics seem under debate. *however*, now >> that I think about it, all we need to care about is the syntax, for >> protocol purposes. > > One question - is it proposed that the way to send queries over SOAP > is the XML form or a CDATA string also possible? It is proposed that *a* way is to use the XML form. However, we can certainly have an alternative binding that did the "thin wrapper" variant. The abstract portion remains the same (i.e, the *type* is specified by the W3C schema; the *wire format* is specified in the binding). [snip] > We moved the FROM/WITH out of the QL so the QL has a dependency on > protocol. >> Er...well, not exactly, right? Yes there is functionality that used >> to be in QL language that now will only be available in the protocol, >> but moving them out of the query doesn't create a dependancy between >> any of the remaining aspects of the QL and the protocol, does it? Am >> I missing something? > > Only that it has to support query requests. There has to be a check > that the expressivity of that section of the protocol work is > sufficient for the usage of the QL even if some datasets can't be > expressed (that is reasonable given that there are many, many > configurations of dataset). I don't understand the last bit about "some datasets can't be expressed". > Some text to tie to the two together would help the reader. Yes, but do you want to have a forward reference from the query spec that is more elaborate than a pointer? Could you point me to the part of the spec that's moving so I can get a better sense? Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 21 March 2005 21:14:19 UTC