Re: Semantic Layers (Was Interpretation of RDF reification)

Maybe I'm not seeing something, but I see a strange parallel!

>  The message format contains six fields:
>
>  1. Message id.

(Some of the) HTTP Header/SOAP Header

>  2. Sender id.

IP Address of client/requester agent of Web Service

>  3. Recipient id (if blank, the message is posted to a
>     Linda Blackboard, where it can be associatively
>     retrieved by any module that knows what to do with
>     messages that match the patterns it's looking for).

URI/IP Address of host / provider agent of Web Service - although no
Linda Blackboard per se.

>  4. Speech act, which specifies why this message is being
>     sent.

HTTP GET, PUT, POST, et. al in HTTP header. SOAP Header.

>  5. Language identifier, so that any recipient can determine
>     how to read it or where to send it for translation.

Namespace URI (still a weak point that needs development on the Web)
that points to namespace of HTML, RDF, OWL, etc.

>  6. Message in whatever language is specified in #5 for
>     whatever purpose is specified in #4. =

Representation retrieved from resource, like good old HTML, RDF, OWL,
vanilla XML, SOAP message body, etc.

> That's all.  The real power comees from the collection of modules that
> are made available.


If I ever get you and TimBL in a bar, I'll buy you both drinks because
it's obvious great minds think alike. Maybe the Web needs more modules -
and no-one appears to be making a lot of money of this Web architecture,
although people are obviously addicted. There's some points where there
is divergence, i.e. to remain totally in parallel we should give every
ordinary HTTP and SOAP message a URI (oh dear!). Also, I might add
things with the Web get more complicated quickly. My point is that
SemWeb is (kind of, and not only) #5/#6 in comparison with Sowa's
system, not the whole thing. But the entire Web (Old-fashioned
HTML/SemWeb/Web Services) can be construed as a system parallel to Sowa's.

Apologies for reneging on promise, and will stop posting on this subject
after this. What can I say, I've seen the light :)

             -harry

Received on Thursday, 30 March 2006 02:08:12 UTC