- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 11:55:15 +0100
- To: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Cc: paul.downey@bt.com, jmarsh@microsoft.com, www-ws-desc@w3.org
On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 11:51 +0100, Hugo Haas wrote: > > 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'm wondering if this means that we are going to require in this case > a name property for binding operations to distinguish them. Wouldn't this be confusing? interface/operation name="getStockQuote" binding/operation ref="getStockQuote" name="somethingElse"? Instead, I suggest again that we require up to one binding operation for a single interface operation, as it seems that two different bindings with the same endpoint address would do the job equally well for SPARQL. In simple words - if you want to bind an operation twice and differently, use two bindings. Best regards, Jacek
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 10:55:22 UTC