- From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 12:14:21 +0100
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
- Cc: paul.downey@bt.com, jmarsh@microsoft.com, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 11:14:27 UTC
* Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org> [2005-11-04 11:55+0100] > 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. I prefer this approach too. Cheers, Hugo -- Hugo Haas - W3C mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 11:14:27 UTC