W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2002

AT RISK: coordination of RDF Core WG's SOAP 1.2 / XML Protocol Last Call review comments - consider sending individual reviews

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 13:33:49 +0000
Message-ID: <3D36C3BD.9090201@w3.org>
To: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Folks,

Re the SOAP 1.2 review(s)

The time I'd budgeted this week to spend on reviewing and summarising 
others comments was unavoidably spent elsewhere(*), much to my regret.

My attention today and tommorrow (Brian: possible regrets) is also at 
risk. This means that I may not be able to spend time on the SOAP review 
before the deadline. If this tranpires, please submit individual review 
comments, rather than miss their Last Call comments deadline. If anyone 
else wants to step in and coordinate a joint response, be my guest.

To repeat my comments from telecon and some quick additional notes:

  * potential isomorphism between the SOAP / Web Service edge-labelled
    graph data model ('SOAP Encoding Data Model') and the Semantic Web /
    RDF graph data model is a concern.
  * since SOAP now supports HTTP GET bindings, we can expect to see
    hyperlinks into SOAP services that return SOAP Encoded graphs, just
    as we can expect to see hyperlinks to RDF documents. I'd like to see
    clear guidelines as to when each form is appropriate.
  * when should a service expose SOAP Encoded data vs something like RDF?
  * what schema language might be used to define node and edge types for
    a SOAP Encoded model of some problem domain? (see www-ws-desc
    archives for recent discussion on this). Could RDFS and/or WebOnt/OWL
    be used?
  * can edge-types ('accessors') in SOAP be named with URIs (via the
    XML namespaces mechanism), so that RDFS and/or WebOnt/OWL could
    be used to provide additional metadata. For example, that a certain
    edge type (eg. xyz:mailbox) encoded an unambiguous property.

I have been working on an implementation of many of these issues, 
showing RDF query of soap-encoded graph data (software descriptions), 
and the need for further metadata about SOAP graph edge types. If I 
wasn't otherwise distracted I might even have written it up in time :(

Dan


- -- 
http://www.w3.org/People/DanBri/







(*) you don't want to know the details, only that reviewing SOAP would 
have been 1000 times more enjoyable.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE9NsPCPhXvL3Mij+QRAqKeAJ9P7vkhudDy5VMALfmpkLkfwwW50gCgjgEu
QznyLENtfwXLvPz8kERE4jw=
=XiSI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 18 July 2002 09:13:37 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:49:51 EDT