RE: A Simple Analogy

AFAIK, WSDL has no semantics. Its intended for design time binding, with a
programmer intervention, not for runtime binding.

I would think RDF will make UDDI and WSDL unnecessary. 

Sateesh

----------Original Message-----
-----From: dehora [mailto:bill@dehora.fsnet.co.uk]
-----Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 2:10 PM
-----To: Danny Ayers; Brian McBride
-----Cc: RDF-Interest
-----Subject: RE: A Simple Analogy
-----
-----
-----
----- 
-----: 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
----- 
-----