RE: Attempted review of SPARQL Protocol LC Draft

Hi, sorry that I only just noticed this, but if we can have multiple
binding operation components with the same name, we need to update the
fragment identifier for these components to be able to address each
particular one of them. This is an issue important for the RDF mapping.

I cannot think at this moment of any distinguishing characteristic of
these same-named binding operations that can readily be used in the
component designators, though. And I thought that different bindings of
one operation can be done in different bindings, and these can then be
provided by the same endpoint, so the SPARQL WSDL can be refactored and
we can (again?) forbid multiple different binding operation components
with the same name.

I think we need email discussion before the f2f so that this can be
readily handled there.

Best regards,

Jacek

On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 17:12 +0100, paul.downey@bt.com wrote:
> Hi Hugo,
> 
> I did mention this out in my review:
> 
> > As discussed previously within this Working group, the service
> > is interesting in that the operation is bound to both HTTP and 
> > SOAP 1.2 over HTTP.  In the case of HTTP, the operation is 
> > bound twice using the whttp:method attribute to distinguish 
> > between the GET and POST instances, both accepting input as
> > application/x-www-form-urlencoded parameters.
> 
> I thought we had discussed binding the operation twice
> to GET and POST during the Palo Alto (TIBCO) F2F, and decided
> it was OK, but I'm now questioning my memory and the WSDL 2.0
> model in my head. Sorry, I should have flagged this up more 
> strongly during my walk-through on last week's call.
> 
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hugo Haas [mailto:hugo@w3.org]
> Sent: Thu 10/27/2005 12:08 PM
> To: Downey,P,Paul,CXMA C
> Cc: jmarsh@microsoft.com; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Attempted review of SPARQL Protocol LC Draft
>  
> Hi Paul.
> 
> Sorry to comment late on your review. However, I noticed something in
> the draft:
> 
> * paul.downey@bt.com <paul.downey@bt.com> [2005-10-19 16:25+0100]
> > The draft calls attention (in red text) to three WSDL 2.0 
> > issues raised by this use-case:
> > 
> > - the requirement to have a single output media type,
> > - and a single fault media type
> >   which we recorded as LC337 and LC338 respectively: 
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/#LC337
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/#LC338
> > 
> > - the inability of having an inputSerialization of 
> > "application/x-www-urlencoded" when the value a binding style 
> > is "http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl/style/iri", which we 
> > recorded as: 
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/#LC345
> 
> I noticed the following in the draft:
> 
>   <binding name="queryHttp" interface="tns:SparqlQuery" 
> 	    type="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl/http"
> 	    whttp:version="1.1">
> 
>     <fault name="MalformedQuery" whttp:code="400"/>
>     <fault name="QueryRequestRefused" whttp:code="500"/>
> 
>     <!-- the GET binding for query operation -->
>     <operation ref="tns:query" whttp:method="GET"
> 	       whttp:inputSerialization="application/x-www-form-urlencoded" />
> 
>     <!-- the POST binding for query operation -->
>     <operation ref="tns:query" whttp:method="POST" 
> 	       whttp:inputSerialization="application/x-www-form-urlencoded" />
> 
>   </binding>
> 
> Can one bind an operation twice? It was not clear from my reading of
> the specification whether it was allowed.
> 
> If this isn't the case, do we have an issue about this from the DAWG?
> If not, we should make this comment to the DAWG, and figure out what
> to do here.
> 
> As Kendall raised a number of issues, I have lost track of where we
> are with accomodating the SPARQL Protocol use of WSDL 2.0.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Hugo
>

Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 09:07:27 UTC