Re: agenda: RDF Data Access 30Aug

On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 11:12:30AM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:

> 2. comment: Query forms should be resources, not operations
> ACTION: KendallC to write another draft response to Mark Baker's comment
> and send to WG for possible discussion

I just did this.

> 3. comment: SPARQL Protocol: inconsistent parameter names
> I expect the answer is "yes, this is by design" but since we
> received it before deciding to go to last call, we need to make
> sure it doesn't introduce an open issue.

Nope, it's not by design. I mean, whether it was or not, it's a bug. There
is an issue here about the normativity of the WSDL bindings and what
constitutes a compliant SPARQL Protocol service. To wit, I'm considering
adding language like this to the spec:

  To be a compliant SPARQL Protocol service, a service MUST support the
  SparqlQuery interface, and it MUST support either the HTTP bindings or the
  SOAP bindings or both the HTTP and SOAP bindings as described in
  <sparql-protocol-query.wsdl>. A SPARQL Protocol service MAY support other
  interfaces as well.

> ACTION: KC to work with WSDL WG on describing POST binding with
> application/x-form-encoded in WSDL 2
> ACTION: KC to work with WSDL WG on moving "style" from interface to
> binding

I haven't done either of these; I intend to do both of them by sending
formal Last Call comments re: these issues to the WS-Desc WG, either today
or tomorrow.

> 5. Protocol testing

EliasT seems squarely on top of this, and we've had a few off-line
conversations about it recently.

FWIW, I'm still trying to come back up to speed after taking some vacation


Received on Monday, 29 August 2005 16:58:05 UTC