- From: Narahari, Sateesh <Sateesh_Narahari@jdedwards.com>
- Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 17:16:00 -0600
- To: "'dehora'" <bill@dehora.fsnet.co.uk>
- Cc: RDF-Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
AFAIK, WSDL has no semantics. Its intended for design time binding, with a programmer intervention, not for runtime binding. I would think RDF will make UDDI and WSDL unnecessary. Sateesh ----------Original Message----- -----From: dehora [mailto:bill@dehora.fsnet.co.uk] -----Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 2:10 PM -----To: Danny Ayers; Brian McBride -----Cc: RDF-Interest -----Subject: RE: A Simple Analogy ----- ----- ----- ----- -----: There's a good chance that WSDL & UDDI will get good -----adoption - I don't -----: mind, it's a step in the right direction. I just think -----that at some point -----: the WSDL <-> RDF linkage will be needed, whereas if you -----go the route of pure -----: (once it's been ironed) RDF then things like WSDL & -----UDDI are redundant. ----- -----Sure, but is it not equally possible that RDF becomes redundant, -----replaced by an extension of WSDL or some such? Not a happy -----scenario, -----but it's worth considering. One thing that WSDL has in it's favour -----(aside from industry backing): there's no perception that -----it requires -----a general problem solver, inference, truth maintanance, or an AI -----degree. Not sure the same can be said for RDF. And yes I -----know that's -----rubbish. But perceptions count: people do think that RDF -----is rarified -----stuff...and WSDL, well that's just plain markup, right? ----- -----Service description languages and the accompanying code at -----the nodes -----are important and neccessary, but they don't have to be in -----or use RDF, -----whereas they do have to be in XML. When I look at RDF and -----WSDL, I am -----reminded that C went mainstream and Lisp didn't. ----- -----regards -----Bill de hOra ----- -----
Received on Sunday, 15 April 2001 19:24:36 UTC