- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:47:40 +0000
- To: kendall@monkeyfist.com
- CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Kendall Clark wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 04:54:24PM -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: > >>On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 15:10 -0500, 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. >> >>Cool... I'm interested in WSDL tools that do cool stuff with it... >>are there WSDL validators and such? >> >>Have you tried it out in any tools? > > > This is WSDL 2, and I don't know of any such tools for WSDL > 2. Apparently, though, there is a planned remapping of WSDL 2 back > into WSDL 1.1 -- but I'm very fuzzy on the details. > > >>> The changes include importing the results format, declaring >>>schema types for "the rdf dataset", for some operation response types >>>(graph creation & deletion), >> >>hmm... graph creation and deletion? > > > They were in the previous version, and Andy and I had some discussion > of them on list, iirc. It was not support for update operations though. Indeed, I was trying to understand where they came from. Andy > > >>we decided which interfaces and operations in Boston... >> >> RESOLVED: that the SPARQL WSDL description shall have 3 interfaces >> (SPARQLQuery and SPARQLDiscovery and SPARQLQueryAndDiscovery), >> each with one operation >> >> -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/ftf5-bos.html#item_03 >> >>The decision is a little funky, because it depends on a decision >>that I thought we had made earlier but didn't. Still... >>I suspect you're more likely to get consensus by sticking >>to just those three. > > > They are trivial to remove, if the WG doesn't support them. One nice > artifact of using WSDL. Plus no one has to implement them, but > services (like some of ours) which want to can implement them in a way > that any client can use them if it is written to look for them. > > Seems like a win all the way around. > > Kendall Clark >
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2005 09:48:09 UTC