RE: Attempted review of SPARQL Protocol LC Draft

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.


-----Original Message-----
From: Hugo Haas []
Sent: Thu 10/27/2005 12:08 PM
To: Downey,P,Paul,CXMA C
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:

* <> [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: 
> - the inability of having an inputSerialization of 
> "application/x-www-urlencoded" when the value a binding style 
> is "", which we 
> recorded as: 

I noticed the following in the draft:

  <binding name="queryHttp" interface="tns:SparqlQuery" 

    <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" />


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.



Hugo Haas - W3C -

Received on Thursday, 27 October 2005 16:17:38 UTC