- From: Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>
- Date: 30 Mar 2001 10:07:24 -0600
- To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- Cc: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <frystyk@microsoft.com>
"Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <frystyk@microsoft.com> writes: > I see a reference to the SOAP HTTP binding - I might be missing > something but is there any reason why SOAP [1] could not be used as > the protocol for carrying RDF data around. That's entirely possible. Given the number of SOAP routers that will likely become available it would make a good carrier of RDF payloads in many situations. > - maybe even use the SOAP encoding [2]? That too, but I envision less likely. You'll need to convince the RDF folks that a mapping between RDF and SOAP encoding is suitable first. Unfortunately, it's the combination of SOAP envelope and SOAP encoding that really make "just RDF" look so much more appealing. An RDF "message" has a well defined and simple data model, *always*[a], whether it's payload information or meta-information about the payload. This means that the serialization of RDF is rather insignificant. SOAP, on the other hand, has an envelope model where the header can have arbitrary XML (under sub-elements of <SOAP-ENV:Header>), and the SOAP encoding model is quite complex in comparison to RDF. As you note in a later message, the focus is on the XML document. I'll add that it's the effort necessary to process it. Beyond that, the parallels are often very direct. I think the key distinction is whether one would want to process messages via the DOM (as most SOAP implementations do) or via an RDF API, and what effect that has on the message data model and the architecture that surrounds it. -- Ken > [1] http://www.w3.org/tr/soap/ > [2] http://www.ilrt.bristol.ac.uk/discovery/2000/08/www9-slides/henrik/ [a] Although usage of the model can get heavy into the abstract, at times.
Received on Friday, 30 March 2001 11:43:13 UTC