Comments received during CR have led to these changes in the SPARQL Protocol for RDF:
The other changes to the specification during CR were editorial in nature:
The Working Group does not believe that any of these changes would invalidate any previous review of the specification, nor require any implementation to change.
The Working Group has asked commenters to let the group know if they were not satisfied with the response to their comments.
In the table below, red in the WG decision column indicates that no changes to the document or related materials were made based on the comment, and green indicates that a change was made to accommodate the comment.
In the "Commenter reply" column, red indicates the commenter objected to the WG resolution, green indicates approval, and yellow means the commenter didn't respond to the Working Group response to the comment.
|Commenter||Comment||Working Group decision||Commenter reply|
Error in sparql-protocol-query.wsdl detected by Apache Woden
... However, the SOAP fault codes are part of the SOAP envelope namespace. The binding should be: ...
|Fixed bug in WSDL.||None.|
The schemaLocation attribute is of course optional, and we could mandate additional mechanisms in our test framework to deal with it (e.g. add a catalog file). However the single omission looks more like a mistake to me than a deliberate design choice. Is the omission of schemaLocation deliberate? If all other factors are equal, would you consent to adding it?
|Added schemaLocation to WSDL||Commenter acknowledged response offlist.|
SPARQL Protocol: application/sparql-query requests
From http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-rdf-sparql-protocol-20060406/ it is not really clear to me why POSTing application/sparql-query documents to the service is a bad thing...
No direct technical solution in WSDL 2.0.
I have received a response from the WS-description WG  and unfortunately we didn't get a favorable answer. They are currently in last call and Jonathan Marsh had filed a bug to address your concern, however, they did not get around to resolving it this time around. He also suggested using an extension, which seems a bit overkill for the simple feature you are looking for in the SPARQL protocol. Last time DAWG discuss this issue in a meeting, there was almost no support to move forward with this issue if the WS-desc group did not come up with a feasible answer. Hence, we would like to leave the protocol as it's currently defined.
SPARQL Protocol question - details of 2.1.2 query In Message
I found what I believe to be a problem in the SPARQL protocol specification. The basic problem is a disparity between http://www.w3.org/2005/09/sparql-protocol-types ... which is imported by http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-protocol/sparql-protocol-query.wsdl ... and http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-protocol/sparql-protocol-types.xsd ...
|Fixed old schema at namespace URI location.||None.|
SPARQL WSDL problems
I am encountering problems with SPARQL WSDL1.1 and WSDL2.0. For both I am using Axis2...
Fixed one bug. Also:
|Commenter promises further tool-independent detail. No further response.|