W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2006

RE: URI for the concept of SOAP MEP?

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 14:46:48 -0800
Message-ID: <E16EB59B8AEDF445B644617E3C1B3C9C6D2929@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, <michael.mahan@nokia.com>
Cc: <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>

I don't see anything about providing RDF descriptions in our charter.
There's only one mention of RDF and that's wrt data model transports and
serialization.

I'm not sure how far this will go and I'm a little concerned about the
precedent.  Do all the concepts that will be in any RDF mapping need to
be in a WG's RDF description?  If the generic problem is that a
description format references a concept from another spec and the rdf
mapping requires that the concept have a URI, does that mean that every
time a description format finds it needs a URI that originating
committee has to rev it's rdf mapping?

Further, does that mean that any WG that produces a spec that might be
described - and probably have an RDF mapping - will need to do RDF
descriptions for the RDF mapping of the description format?  

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 10:16 AM
> To: michael.mahan@nokia.com
> Cc: jacek.kopecky@deri.org; xml-dist-app@w3.org; Tim Berners-Lee
> Subject: RE: URI for the concept of SOAP MEP?
> 
> 
> Mike Mahon writes:
> 
> > I'll put this on the next XMLP agenda and will let you know the
> > expected timeframe for resolution after that.
> 
> Thank you, Mike.  You and the workgroup may be interested in the note
that
> I posted this morning to the TAG list [1].  I suggest that all
concerned
> take a look as input to our XMLP discussion.  Please also take a look
at
> the most recent response from Tim Berners-Lee, in which he suggests
that
> the representation of the new resource we create have the following
> characteristics [2]:
> 
> "The URI should be the URI of an RDF document # a local identifier.
The
> RDF document should define basic information about the class, that it
is a
> class, label, comment, etc. If the URI is being minted as part of the
RDF
> mapping, then I don't see a reason from the document being in anything
> other than RDF."
> 
> Taking my note and Tim's together, there's also a good chance that we
> might want to put RDF descriptions in place for the particular MEPs at
> [3,4].
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Noah
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Jan/0065.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2006Jan/0066.html
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/request-response/
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/soap-response/ [3]
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 23 January 2006 22:47:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:21 GMT