W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sws-ig@w3.org > November 2003

Re: Question on grounding!

From: Mithun Sheshagiri <mits1@csee.umbc.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:00:19 +0000
Message-ID: <3FB8E283.8060009@csee.umbc.edu>
To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
Cc: chsakda@MIT.EDU

Dear Sakda,
             Please read below.

 >Dear all,

 >I have been observing examples on DAML-S and other implementations for >a
 >while. I have some observation that I would like to ask for your 

 >1)       I realized that almost all the examples available now, all the
 >input and output of any remote methods to be invoked by the web 
 >services are
 >in primitive types.

This is actually good and desirable since the same service can cater to 
both RDF/XML-savy as well as XML-based consumers. Also, if you want to 
publish a service that caters solely to RDF users, there are techniques 
by which you can encapsulate RDF in the SOAP:Body.

 >Setting aside the problem of interoperability of
 >serialization in each environment like java or .NET, in the semantic 
 >how would we be able to describe complex type data like String[], 
 >ArrayList. Because the semantic and data structure of these rich data 
 >are encoded by the developers and it is extremely difficult to describe
 >semantics of these data types.

The developers could also provide XSLT transformations that map data 
stored in these data types to RDF/XML. The section on grounding in the 
0.9 specs talks about this.

 >Therefore, I'm not really sure about how we
 >could use these rich data types in the semantic web service framework.

 >2)       Following the first observation of mine, I was thinking of one
 >possibility, although impractical, is that we might end up with
 >implementation of another layer to transfer every data type into an xml
 >description with semantics before we actually do serialization. Then >the
 >question that comes to my mind is that we lose a lot of promise that 
 >the OOP
 >provides us about reusability of types since at the end everything >being
 >sending through the wire is a document-centric messaging rather than
 >data-centric messaging.

 >I am wondering whether there has ever been anyone who address these 
 >before? If anyone could share with me your valuable opinions, I would >be
 >really appreciated. Thank you.

Hope this helps!

Received on Monday, 17 November 2003 10:01:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:32:43 UTC