- From: Shi, Xuan <xshi@GEO.WVU.edu>
- Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:18:04 -0500
- To: "'Joachim Peer '" <joachim.peer@unisg.ch>, "'jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk '" <jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: "'Harry Halpin '" <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, "'public-sws-ig@w3.org '" <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
When Tim Berners-Lee defined the semantic Web, the word "semantic" meant "machine processable". Now that Web services are designed for "machine-processable", WSDL is criticized as not "semantic". The word "semantic" in Semantic Web Services seems different from that in Semantic Web? If Tim Berners-Lee's definition is still effective, we can understand both XML and RDF/OWL are machine-processible. Which way we should go? Still it's an issue of agreement and standardization, otherwise, we have to continue our debate. Especially according to Tim Berners-Lee's definition, WSDL is machine-processible then why should we again add "semantics" onto such machine-processible (thus "semantic") WSDL document? Or we are talking about something different in the domains of SW and SWS? -----Original Message----- From: Joachim Peer To: jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk Cc: Harry Halpin; public-sws-ig@w3.org Sent: 11/25/05 9:00 AM Subject: Re: Where are the semantics in the semantic Web? dear all, i've followed this thread with great interest. i have tried to summarize some technical (pro XML) arguments in a little paper which is attached to this mail kind regards! Joachim <<rdfxml.pdf>>
Received on Friday, 25 November 2005 19:17:41 UTC