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

-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/