- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:46:07 -0400
- To: kendall@monkeyfist.com
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Aug 29, 2005, at 12:57 PM, Kendall Clark wrote: [snip] > 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. So, question: do we want the HTTP binding to be required? One general advantage, I think, of WSDL like descriptions is that it, IMHO, obviates the need for specifying conformance levels. Or requirements, even. You can make clear what your service supports (by and large) directly. So, you support the Sparql HTTP protocol. Great! Just have an endpoint which points to that binding. You support the SOAP one, similar. You support both, easy peasy. You support something altogether different? Add your own binding. Isn't this the whole point of using machine readable descriptions? Why do we need Yet Another Name to indicate further levels of conformance? There may be some market value in having a name, but I somehow doubt it. Interopt isn't really enhanced, is it? Also, David Orchard mucked around with more elaborate HTTP binding bits. I think this is a bit dated but interesting: http://www.pacificspirit.com/Authoring/ wsdlArtistWSDL2uriformencoding.html One might also ask him to review, given his expertise. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 29 August 2005 19:46:25 UTC