Re: does DAWG actually have time to do WSDL?

On Mar 21, 2005, at 4:03 PM, Seaborne, Andy wrote:

> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> 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 

> 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 

> 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?


Received on Monday, 21 March 2005 21:14:19 UTC