- From: Ian Dickinson <ian.dickinson@hp.com>
- Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:42:19 +0000
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Cc: David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>, public-sws-ig <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
Bijan Parsia wrote: >> [David Martin] >> Very good point. I don't know the answer to this either, but we'll >> look in to it. > WSDL 2.0 supplies a mapping from the qnames to canonical URIs for > components (using a set of xpointer schemes). We could do one for WSDL > 1.1 as well, I suppose. I haven't looked at WSDL 2.0 yet, and after reading Rich Salz's rant [1] I'm not inclined to for the time being! But if they have specified a qname<->uri mapping, and it's consistent with wsdl 1.1, then it seems a good idea to refer to it from owl-s. Because without doubt wsdl 1.1 will be around for a long time yet. We still have DAML users wanting support on the Jena forum, despite the length of time that OWL has been around (and the fact that OWL is a better specification than DAML). WSDL 1.1 is far more prevalent than DAML ever was. Ian [1] http://www.xml.com/lpt/a/2004/11/17/salz.html
Received on Saturday, 20 November 2004 10:42:57 UTC