Re: UDDI and semantics

• From: Paul Denning <pauld@mitre.org>
• Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 13:08:25 -0500
• To: "Max Voskob" <max.voskob@paradise.net.nz>, "www-sws-ig" <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
• Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.0.20031119125317.03568dc8@129.83.20.110>

At 09:54 PM 2003-11-18, Max Voskob wrote:

>Your comments and ideas are very welcome.

Max,
I will speculate that you will meet resistance to the rdfBag idea as it 
will make UDDI servers more complex to implement.

Lacking the rdfBag, you can now use a categoryBag to point to an RDF or OWL 
file.  You would need a taxonomy tModel, unchecked, where the keyValue is 
the URI of the RDF or OWL info.

This seems more in keeping with the way things seem to work with UDDI where 
it points to things outside of UDDI for details.

This would imply that some engine would look though UDDI for all such use 
of this "taxonomy" in a categoryBag, follow the keyValue to retrieve and 
index the RDF/OWL, and provide a query and subscription/notification service.

Paul 

Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2003 13:10:09 UTC