- From: Dave Beckett <Dave.Beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 11:35:32 +0100 (BST)
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Dan Connolly wrote: > According to latest word from the WSDL WG, the (standard) URI for our > interface will be... > http://www.w3.org/2005/08/sparql-protocol-query/#wsdl.interface(SparqlQuery) > > i.e. something that can't be used as a qname in RDF/XML nor turtle. > > Is that good enough? I need to say within the next week or so if not. Seems good enough to me. I doubt it'll be useful to use as a *predicate* which is the main restriction for RDF/XML. It's annoying but not a big problem as a *subject* or *object* as you can always give a full URI in either syntax. > I can't think if any show-stopper reason why not, though it sure isn't pretty. it sure isn't. > > For details, the thread starts with > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2005Sep/0009 > and culminates with > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2005Oct/0013 > > > This is mostly related to serviceDescription, which we've > postponed. > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/issues#serviceDescription > > But by the time we (or somebody like us) pick it up, it'll > be too late to give technical input on WSDL 2.0. Dave
Received on Friday, 7 October 2005 10:35:41 UTC