RE: limitations of {http output serialization}

Thanks for your comment.  The WS Description Working Group tracked this
as a Last Call comment LC338 [1].  The resolution to issue LC337 [2]
included fixes intended to resolve this issue as well.

If we don't hear otherwise within two weeks, we will assume this
satisfies your concern.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/issues.html#LC338
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/issues.html#LC337

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Kendall Clark
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 7:17 AM
> To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Cc: Dan Connolly
> Subject: limitations of {http output serialization}
> 
> 
> [Resend with a more apt subject line.]
> 
> WS-Desc,
> 
> I'm writing on behalf of DAWG, which is using WSDL 2.0 to specify the
> SPARQL
> Protocol for RDF [1]. We have a couple of LC comments about WSDL 2.0,
> and
> I'll be sending each one in a separate message.
> 
> In short, we'd like to have multiple values for {http output
> serialization}.
> Well, in truth, multiple values, or some kind of MIME wildcard, or
> allow
> that component to be optionally declared. (FWIW, I believe this issue
> is
> related to LC323 but not identical.)
> 
> Our situation is that our protocol qua service has one interface,
> SparqlQuery, and one operation, query. That operation takes a SPARQL
> query
> and returns the results of that query. Nice, neat, and simple.
> 
> However, SPARQL queries may return different MIME types, including
> application/sparql-results+xml, application/rdf+xml, as well as
> different
> serializations of RDF (N3, Turtle, N-Triples).
> 
> We also have a POST binding for query in order to submit In Messages
> that
> are so long as to not reliably be serializable over a GET.
> 
> If we had to declare a different operations, the total number would
> become
> really unwieldy -- I think the total number would be 10 (number of
> serialization formats, 5, times the number of HTTP methods, 2 -- eek!
> And,
> FWIW, this will only get worse if future DAWG adds other interfaces or
> operations, with the same blowup of operations. Very unwieldy!)
> 
> Much simpler, and more descriptively accurate, to be able to say:
> 
> <operation ... whttp:outputSerialization="application/sparql-
> results+xml,
> application/rdf+xml...">
> 
> or
> 
> <operation ... whttp:outputSerialization="*/*">
> 
> Cheers,
> Kendall Clark
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/sw/2001/DataAccess/proto-wd/
>

Received on Thursday, 6 October 2005 17:03:00 UTC