- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:10:07 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, kendall@monkeyfist.com
On Aug 16, 2005, at 9:56 AM, Dan Connolly wrote: > > On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 14:34 -0400, Kendall Clark wrote: >> 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. > > Yes; it seems there's a requirements mismatch. > > Evidently the SPARQL protocol isn't a Web Service, because Web Services > have all their I/O in XML: eh. > "Definition: A Web Service is a software application identified by a > URI > [IETF RFC 2396], whose interfaces and binding are capable of being > defined, described and discovered by XML artifacts and supports direct > interactions with other software applications using XML based messages > via Internet-based protocols". > -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-ws-desc-reqs-20021028/ > > I don't think I had thought that thru when we adopted First, that's not a view supported by action of the group, e.g.,: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/ altschemalangs.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8 Second, "capable" and "supports" are such weasel words...I'd suggest that you conform to it already (just by having RDF/XML and XML results format for return). It doesn't saw that *all* the messages have to be XML :) > 3.14 WSDL Protocol > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-dawg-uc/#r3.14 > > Hmm... maybe time to reconsider. [snip] Hope not. If WSDL 2.0 can't describe SPARQL usefully, there's a problem on one side or the other, I firmly believe. LC for both sides is a good time to resolve this. Re: The multiple output issue, what I understand the WSDL working group position (and what I capture d in the Alt Schema Language document, refed above) is that having this sort of language spanning Union type was best handled at the schema language level. I.e., if you really should define a new, very simple (in some sense) schema languages that allows such mixed definition. (In fact, that's what you are asking the WSDL group to do.) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2005 14:10:16 UTC