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

RE: URI for the concept of SOAP MEP?

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 01:51:08 +0100
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, michael.mahan@nokia.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1138063868.3735.10.camel@localhost>


I think I understand your concern about where this could lead. In fact,
I'd be perfectly happy if all WGs that create something machine
processible had an RDF mapping deliverable in their charters. For
example one big hole in the WSDL RDF mapping will be XML Schema - WSDL
only refers to schema things by QNames, which would not be necessary if
schema had a suitable RDF mapping.

On the other hand, there's the question of resources, of course. In
particular, the WSDL WG requests one URI for one class. The appropriate
RDF document describing this particular class should be very simple, if
indeed the WG decides to have one. And the WG can decide not to provide
a URI for the class, which might become a bit of a coordination issue.

After we (WSDL) got this one URI, we'll be happy for a while, as we have
other URIs from you that are perfectly useful even though you don't
provide RDF documents for them, and then the W3C can consider how it
could go about creating RDF ontologies at least for its own things. 

Maybe a team member could make such an ontology for any new CR W3C spec,
and publish it as a note? This would help with CR and we'd have more
ontologies. 8-)

Hope this helps,


On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 14:46 -0800, David Orchard wrote:
> 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
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2006 00:51:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:28 UTC