Re: D-AC009.2 discussion points and proposal(s)

On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 08:47:20AM -0400, Champion, Mike wrote:
> We're talking about WSA here, not WSD.

Hmm.  I'm talking about other Web services working groups; peers of WSD
who actually produce implementable specs (i.e. not us 8-).

>  IMHO, one can make a good case for a
> WSDL-like language based on RDF without insisting that *all* components of
> the web services architecture be mapped to RDF.

Right.  Hence "should".

>  For example, it's not
> obvious to me how an RDF mapping would address the reliability issue in a
> useful way.

See;

http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/drafts/formalism.html
http://www.w3.org/XML/9711theory/HTTP.html

> So, WSD chartered itself to produce an RDF mapping, that's their
> decision and we'll all learn from the success or failure of that effort.  I
> see no reason at this point to insist that other WGs spawned by the WSA need
> this constraint.

They didn't charter themselves that way, that's impossible.  The
membership and team did.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com