Re: 303 +1, WSDL -1

On Jul 15, 2007, at 6:58 AM, Carole Goble wrote:

> Alan
>>
>> This can be done now, with effort analogous to what is being done  
>> with LSIDS. Let me point out some obvious advantages: 1) No  
>> requirement to use web services (though web services *could* be  
>> described as ways of accessing further statements using this  
>> scheme) 2) Requires *less* manual intervention than is currently  
>> required to maintain the WSDL. 3) Re-uses purl, which is based on  
>> HTTP, which everyone knows how to use already 4) Makes clear that  
>> the description of these additional resources for statements are  
>> to be in RDF, and requires that one advertises what to expect if  
>> you go to the resource (will you get an RDF document, a SPARQL  
>> endpoint, a Web service set of methods?)
> and the disadvantages?  Lets not forget some basic rigour here.  
> Other than rebuilding everything from scratch. Again.

Fair enough. I think there will be some pain involved no matter what  
the solution is, certainly on the side of current LSID users if we  
choose not to use them universally, and otherwise on the side of the  
clients who have not yet adopted them.

I do think that it it is possible to arrange things in  such a way as  
to minimize the impact to current LSID users -- there's been some  
though even in this design to doing so - and probably more can be  
done along the lines of the "batch" adaptations that provide  
alternate mechanisms once the basics are in place. I *think* it may  
simply be  matter of making the purl redirect to the LSID resolver,  
and generating some boilerplate RDF that lets other SW agents be  
aware of the web service available "metadata".

Much of the rest of my proposal was either reusing other "standards",  
such as 303, and making explicit some agreements that we would need  
to make things predictable, that aren't currently specified in the  
LSID spec (such as agreement on the format and some minimal contents  
of the "metadata").

I also want to clarify that I don't mean to say that there isn't a  
place for web services on the semantic web. But I did have  
conversations with several people including you, who indicated that  
they were burdonsome *in the specific case of id resolution* and  
that, compared to other features of the spec - particularly location  
independence - it might even be a benefit to dispense with them.

Thanks for saying something,
Alan

Received on Sunday, 15 July 2007 15:25:04 UTC