- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:14:36 +0000
- To: kendall@monkeyfist.com
- Cc: DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Kendall Clark wrote:
> Les chiens,
>
> I've updated
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/proto-wd/sparql-protocol.wsdl
>
> <!-- $Id: sparql-protocol.wsdl,v 1.4 2005/03/21 20:00:34 kclark Exp $
>
> I consider this to be nearly complete w/r/t the "abstract" portion of
> the protocol; that is, the interfaces, their types, operations, and
> faults. The changes include importing the results format, declaring
> schema types for "the rdf dataset", for some operation response types
> (graph creation & deletion), and for "query", which is a string plus
> an rdf dataset (though, now that I look at it again, I realize that
> the rdf-dataset bit isn't quite right)>
<xs:element name="rdf-dataset">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element maxOccurs="unbounded" ref="sl:uri"></xs:element>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
Checking first: are those "sl:uri" referring to graphs? Not datasets
themselves?
Could we enable the specification of the background graph as well as a
number of named graphs? A single background graph would be enough but if
there is more then the semantics are of an RDF merge.
I like the one-request-per SOAP message. Leave multiple request handling to
the protocol subsystem by making several requests and having it sort out the
details.
Andy
>
> It is less complete w/r/t HTTP and SOAP bindings.
>
> Kendall Clark
>
Received on Monday, 21 March 2005 21:15:10 UTC