- From: Aldo Bucchi <aldo.bucchi@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:20:02 -0400
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
Hi all, Suppose the following scenario: I have a set of applications that publish their functionality as a set of services. ApplicationA manages customers and exposes the following services ( a Java-ish signature is used but we could be talking about web service operations or rpcxml services. doesn't matter ) appA.createCustomer( String id, String name ); appA.updateCustomer( String id, String newName ); appA.deleteCustomer( String id ); appA.getCustomers( String idFilter, String nameFilter ); // both nullable or used to filter the returned collection now, I have a second app that manages products in a similar way appB.createProduct( String id, String name ); ... idem... and a third app that manages the products that are owned by a certain customer: appC.getCustomerProducts( String customerId ); appC.relateProductToCustomer( String customerId, String productId ); appC.unrelateProductFromCustomer( String customerId, String productId ); In the RDF world, we can all see that there are two classes of resources, each with two datatype properties ( id and name, where the former is also inverse functional ) and that the Customer class has one resource property that can hold several products. It would be quite straightforward define an ontology and then manually create a batch procedure ( or even on-demand ) to publish all the data contained by this 3 applications as one RDF model. So far so good. But what happens if we wanted to allow an agent to modify the data by updating the RDF graph directly instead of using the services...? How could we keep a mapping between the statements and the services that should be called upong removal, edition, addition to keep both worlds in sync? perhaps some sort of additional information attached to the ontology... one which maps owl classes and properties to the services needed to persist/retrieve their instances... ( ? ) now... the simplest case would be the one where the whole implicit model can be explicitly published as RDF, but as applications grow bigger and bigger... keeping an rdf representation of a zillion record model would require some other strategy. And so would this mapping has anyone thought about this? is there some work on this field? agent | v C . R . U . D. soa <--> rdf/owl Thanks, Aldo -- ::::: Aldo Bucchi ::::: mobile (56) 8 429 8300
Received on Wednesday, 13 September 2006 02:20:05 UTC