- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:34:42 -0400
- To: DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Dan, et. al., I've raised some questions about WSDL 2.0, particularly about some of its restrictions on serialization types: for inputs outputs, and faults. The problems, in a nutshell, are: 1. we don't have any other reason to split the SparqlQuery query operation into separate operations. It's one operation, from out point of view, that may return application/sparql-results+xml or application/rdf+xml. But, near as I can tell, WSDL 2.0 requires an operation to return one and only one output serialization type. I think that's unnecessarily restrictive and means there's a class of useful web services that can't be described. (We do have the option of taking the default outputSerialization type, application/xml, and describing the output of query as XML. Which is generally true, but not very specific.) 2. Similarly, we have two bindings for that operation, query: one that uses GET, with input serialization type application/x-www-form-urlencoded; and another that uses POST, where we'd also like application/x-www-form-urlencode to be the input serialization type. But as I understand WSDL 2.0, it doesn't seem legal to serialize application/x-www-form-urlencode to a POST. That, too, seems unnecessarily restrictive, though I may be misreading their specs. (This is solved by finishing and requiring SparqlX, and while I'm in favor of that, I don't see why we can't use WSDL 2.0 to describe a service that takes application/x-www-form-urlencode via POST.) 3. Last, fault serialization types, as with (1) above, seem to have to be one type only. We haven't discussed this issue yet, but I have assumed we do not want to specify one and only one Media Type for SPARQL implementations to communicate faults, at least on the HTTP side. Is that right? If not, we could moot this issue by requiring one and only one media type for our faults. Kendall Clark PS--My message to the WSDL list is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Aug/0010.html
Received on Monday, 15 August 2005 18:34:54 UTC