- From: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 20:25:23 -0500
- To: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Lee Feigenbaum wrote on 02/25/2007 05:51:49 PM: > > 5. protocol status > > Elias is looking into the WSDL ramifications of supporting > application/sparql-query as an input serialization for the protocol. Not > sure if there's anything to discuss here this week. I've done more looking into this. To recap where we stand, Bjoern sent this message in September: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Sep/0007 ...in which he suggested adding application/sparql-query to the whttp:inputSerialization attribute of the "query" operation. Bjoern surmised that this would allow clients to post SPARQL query documents directly to the server. By virtue of our WSDL defining the input message parts via a reference to an XML schema element (<input ... element="st:query-request"/>), the query message has a message content model of "element". Turning to: 6.3.2.1 Serialization rules for XML messages ( http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20-adjuncts/#_http_binding_default_rule_psf ), we see that there are serialization rules given explicitly for application/xml. These rules are at http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20-adjuncts/#_http_operation_xml_encoding and say that serializing a message as application/xml means that the message's instance data is serialized as Canonical XML. Further, the instance data is explicitly defined ( http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20-adjuncts/#instance_data ) to be "The internal tree representation of an input...constrained by...the XML element referenced in the {element declaration} property of the Interface Message Reference component". As I read it, this means that the inclusion of application/xml amongst our inputSerialization allows for POSTed content that looks like: <st:query-request> <st:query>SELECT * WHERE { ... } </st:query> <st:default-graph-uri>http://example.org/graph1</st:default-graph-uri> <st:default-graph-uri>http://example.org/graph2</st:default-graph-uri> <st:named-graph-uri>http://example.org/graph3</st:named-graph-uri> </st:query-request> By looking at the minutes from our 10 Jan 2006 telecon and subsequent mailing list messages, I do not believe that this is what Kendall (and the rest of the WG?) had in mind when we made this change: http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-dawg-minutes#item02 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2006JanMar/0072 (Kendall, can you comment as to whether I'm interpreting those records correctly?) Continuing in 6.3.2.1 we see that any serialization other than application/xml, multipart/form-data, or application/x-www-form-urlencoded must be serialized just as application/xml would be, but the message's HTTP Content-type header must be set to the appropriate type (application/sparql-query in this case). This does not seem to be the behavior Bjoern is looking for. ...all of which seems to leave us with a few options/questions: 1/ Eliminate application/xml from our list of accepted input serializations. To some extent, this addresses the confusion Bjoern had initially (why application/xml and not application/sparql-query). Does anyone know of any servers or clients that use application/xml serialization? 2/ Figure out how to allow for POSTed application/sparql-query documents in the manner Bjoern suggests. I am not sure what this entails, or if its even doable in WSDL 2.0. Elias and Kendall, do you have any thoughts on this? Perhaps we can discuss at the telecon tomorrow, time permitting... Lee
Received on Tuesday, 27 February 2007 01:25:36 UTC