W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > April 2002

RE: Summary: D-AG0009

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 11:39:09 -0600
Message-ID: <3B286631A9CFD1118D0700805F6F9F5A09D09D2C@hou281-msx1.chevron.com>
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Well, is it possible that one might identify components of web service
architecture that could be implemented using RDF but not, in practical
terms, using XML without RDF?  Or something along those lines?

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] 
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 11:37 AM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Summary: D-AG0009


D-AG0009 hasn't received too much discussion, and certainly none that would
suggest any critical success factors.  So I'll take a stab at it here.

First, the original draft goal was;

"is aligned with the semantic web initiative at W3C and the overall existing
web architecture"

which, because of D-AG0011, we've trimmed down to;

"is aligned with the Semantic Web initiative at W3C"

My own view of the critical success factors for this goal would include;

1. Any meta data about any aspect of the Web services reference architecture
should be expressible with an RDF based language (such as RDF itself, RDF
Schema, DAML+OIL)

- a bit utopian, but that's what goals are for.  Related to WSDL's charter
directive to provide a mapping to RDF.

Hmm, what else .. that one seems to capture everything for me. Thoughts?

Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Monday, 1 April 2002 12:39:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:55 UTC