- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 21:49:49 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 10:35:20AM -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: > and this one open: > ACTION KendallC: to add WSDL description of protocol to editor's draft, > propose to WG. Yes, this is still open. I had no 'net access from Friday morning till Monday afternoon, about 2 hrs ago, which limited the progress I could make. FWIW, I'm relatively happy -- pace a few details of representation in WSDL 2.0 (how do you spell rdf:RDF as a return type, and how can you have more than one possible return type) -- with the WSDL as it is for describing the interfaces. The HTTP bindings need to be completed, which I expect to do this week, and I intend to add SOAP bindings next week. But I think the interfaces could be discussed with an eye toward at least a straw poll from the WG. > 6. privacy section for protocol spec > > ACTION EricP: propose "privacy considerations" for SPARQL protocol > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JanMar/0416.html > > not much response... everybody agrees? I think it's pretty good and intend it to go into the protocol draft ASAP. I've been concentrating on getting the WSDL right, then moving to draft prose around it. > 7. issue: wsdlAbstractProtocol, fromUnionQuery > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#wsdlAbstractProtocol > > ACTION KendallC: to add WSDL description of protocol to editor's draft, > propose to WG. This is repeated from above; same issue, afaik. > progress: > sparql-protocol.wsdl updated Kendall Clark (Monday, 21 March) > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005JanMar/0382.html > > perhaps it addresses fromUnionQuery? > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#fromUnionQuery IIRC, Andy mentioned some issue with that, but I don't recall the details and can't find them in email. > 8. issue: xmlAbstractSyntax > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#xmlAbstractSyntax > > Note new issue, progress, discuss expectations, recruit owner? I intended these to be progress on this issue: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/sparqlx.xsd http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/sparqlx.rnc http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/sparqlx.rng Hmm, that's a bit weak, actually. They *are* progress over the first drafts I sent to the list, in that they accord with Andy's abstract syntax and they are valid schema instances. They are the same schema spelled 3 ways: XML Schema, Relax NG compact, Relax NG XML. Again, sorry that I didn't respond to this agenda sooner; but with my home 'net access being down since Friday, and the holiday weekend, I wasn't able to before now. Kendall Clark
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2005 01:49:31 UTC