- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:03:12 -0400
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 03:46:07PM -0400, Bijan Parsia wrote: > 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. There are two issues, I think: 1. whether a service supports SOAP or HTTP 2. that the service implements the normative bindings we specify So I was trying to say something like this: if you support SOAP, you have to do so with *these bindings*, and if you support HTTP, you have to do so with *these* bindings. But that's different from requiring support of SOAP or HTTP or both. I have no idea where the WG is w/r/t to requiring SOAP support. I was just trying to craft language that says it's *these* SOAP bindings and not any others. > Isn't this the whole point of using machine readable descriptions? Why > do we need Yet Another Name to indicate further levels of conformance? What's the other name? Cheers, Kendall
Received on Monday, 29 August 2005 22:03:46 UTC