Re: OWL-S version 1.1 now available

Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> [David Martin]
>> Very good point.  I don't know the answer to this either, but we'll 
>> look in to it.

> WSDL 2.0 supplies a mapping from the qnames to canonical URIs for 
> components (using a set of xpointer schemes). We could do one for WSDL 
> 1.1 as well, I suppose.

I haven't looked at WSDL 2.0 yet, and after reading Rich Salz's rant [1] 
I'm not inclined to for the time being!  But if they have specified a 
qname<->uri mapping, and it's consistent with wsdl 1.1, then it seems a 
good idea to refer to it from owl-s. Because without doubt wsdl 1.1 will 
be around for a long time yet.  We still have DAML users wanting support 
on the Jena forum, despite the length of time that OWL has been around 
(and the fact that OWL is a better specification than DAML). WSDL 1.1 is 
far more prevalent than DAML ever was.

Ian

[1] http://www.xml.com/lpt/a/2004/11/17/salz.html