W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2001

RE: A Simple Analogy

From: dehora <bill@dehora.fsnet.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 21:09:59 +0100
To: "Danny Ayers" <danny@panlanka.net>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DCEBKOHMHCKKIAAPKLLMMEOHCEAA.bill@dehora.fsnet.co.uk>

 
: There's a good chance that WSDL & UDDI will get good adoption - I don't
: mind, it's a step in the right direction. I just think that at some point
: the WSDL <-> RDF linkage will be needed, whereas if you go the route of pure
: (once  it's been ironed) RDF then things like WSDL & UDDI are redundant.

Sure, but is it not equally possible that RDF becomes redundant, 
replaced by an extension of WSDL or some such? Not a happy scenario, 
but it's worth considering. One thing that WSDL has in it's favour 
(aside from industry backing): there's no perception that it requires 
a general problem solver, inference, truth maintanance, or an AI 
degree. Not sure the same can be said for RDF. And yes I know that's 
rubbish. But perceptions count: people do think that RDF is rarified 
stuff...and WSDL, well that's just plain markup, right?

Service description languages and the accompanying code at the nodes 
are important and neccessary, but they don't have to be in or use RDF, 
whereas they do have to be in XML. When I look at RDF and WSDL, I am 
reminded that C went mainstream and Lisp didn't. 

regards
Bill de hOra
 
Received on Saturday, 14 April 2001 16:13:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:48 GMT