W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: WSDL 2.0 issues

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:17:13 -0400
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050816141713.GO2157@monkeyfist.com>

On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 08:56:51AM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:

> Evidently the SPARQL protocol isn't a Web Service, because Web Services
> have all their I/O in XML:
> "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
> 3.14 WSDL Protocol
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-dawg-uc/#r3.14
> Hmm... maybe time to reconsider.

I don't think "Evidently the SPARQL protocol isn't a Web Service"
*necesssarily* follows. To wit:

1. our decision to *not* do SparqlX

2. our implicit decision to not do a totally trivial XML serialization of
SPARQL, i.e., <sparql><query>SELECT * FROM  ...</query></sparql> (something
like which we get for free from SOAP serialization rules, near as I
understand them)

3. our decision to have bookmarkable queries (which necessitates GET instead
of POST in HTTP)

4. our decision to have a POST form for large queries, w/out any real data
as to what the current limits of GETs are, as well as how likely it is for
SPARQL queries to be larger than the current, practical limits

So, if the limits are 8k, has anyone seen or generated a SPARQL query bigger
than 8k? I haven't. Not even close. What if the limits are bigger?

What are the freakin' limits?! :>

5. our decision, implicit so far, that we can't implement the "POST form for
large queries" simply by using the SOAP binding.

Yes, we can drop the WSDL requirement, with the associated risks. We can
also push back on the WSDL group to loosen some of these restrictions
(especially the ones about output and fault serialization types) that seem
unnecessarily restrictive.

The problem with inputing XML is solvable either by finishing SparqlX or by
simply doing a trivial XML serialization for our query language.

Kendall Clark
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2005 14:17:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:36 UTC