- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:35:35 +0100 (BST)
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- cc: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Dan Brickley wrote: Dan, I agree with your general scenario and comments. > Can you expand on your 'natural fit' comment? If you were building the > software description system described (people are, right now) would you > use SOAP Encoding or RDF syntax? Wouldn't you expect it to be natural to > have a defined mapping between these two W3C specs? In order: I'm guilty of the "bad smell" sin here; basically my concerns are that you're fitting something into what still seems (to me) to be a purely syntactic framework. The existence of a well-defined, sanctioned mapping would at least say, "here are some RDF-style MT semantics for the subset of soap graphs that we map RDF onto". The "no literals at the blunt end" thing might bite us if we "fix" that. And the answer to the most important question (your last one) is an emphatic yes. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk Prolog in JavaScript: http://ioctl.org/logic/prolog-latest
Received on Thursday, 18 July 2002 09:36:02 UTC