- 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