Re: IBM Interest in the WSDL 2.0 RDF Mapping

On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 09:08:06AM -0400, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> Jacek,
> 
> Yes, WSMO counts. Our position is that the if the proponents of semantic 
> Web do not think the RDF mapping is a high priority, then we agree that 
> this deliverable can be dropped. OWL-S is the most obvious proponent in 
> the contenxt of W3C since OWL is already a W3C speciifcation and this 
> requirement comes from W3C.  I understand that WSMO has been submitted to 
> W3C, which gives WSMO folks like you a legitimate claim to do this RDF 
> mapping work. That fact that WSMO also has an Eclipse editor makes me even 
> more supportive of you doing the work :-)

FWIW -- though I'm speaking here only as the UMD alternate to this group,
not as a DAWG member -- the DAWG also has some medium and long term interest
in the RDF mapping. We're using WSDL 2 to specify our protocol for accessing
RDF triple stores over HTTP (and, probably, SOAP), and we also want to
build, eventually, some domain-specific vocabulary for describing RDF query
processing services. Which is a natural for RDF. With an RDF mapping of
WSDL, we can merge all of this stuff together and be happy little clams.

Take this as merely another point of information. :>

Cheers, 
Kendall Clark