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

RE: Summary: D-AG0009

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 12:48:24 -0700
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E402D68827@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 2:42 PM
> To: Champion, Mike
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Summary: D-AG0009
> 
> RDF is very general, and is designed as a framework for describing
> *anything*.  I don't think Web services fall outside that scope. 8-)

Fair enough.  It's generality is not an issue for me ... it's simplicity,
understandability, implementation efficiency, and general cost/benefit ratio
is yet to be demonstrated in the Web Services context, IMHO.  To pick a
possibly trivial example, RDF assertions are about a "resource" identified
by a URI; how will that work when the web service is really identified by a
SOAP message?  I know that you don't like this situation (I don't either!)
but that is the reality on the ground today, and in the short term future.  

We've got enough problems reconciling the web services architecture with
the web architecture, whatever that is, and with reality, whatever that
turns out to be, to accept strong requirements about the architecture being
expressible in RDF/DAML+OIL/whatever. I hope we use every bit of SW-related
technology that makes our job easier ... but no more!
Received on Monday, 1 April 2002 14:48:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:57 GMT