W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-rules@w3.org > January 2004

Re: !

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:30:30 +0200
Message-Id: <D455C21F-41DE-11D8-8F4E-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>
Cc: "Seaborne, Andy" <Andy_Seaborne@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "ext Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, Brian McBride <brian.mcbride@hp.com>, www-rdf-rules@w3.org
To: "ext Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>

On Jan 08, 2004, at 14:07, ext Dan Brickley wrote:

> The one hook I think we need for layering on manipulate/update 
> facilities
> subsequently is access to a (potentially rich) service description;
> presumably in RDF/XML or WSDL or WSDL-in-RDF, ie. we want a way of
> finding out whether some service _does_ have a write interface, even if
> we don't in first specs define classes of write/update/etc interface.

My approach to such service discovery would be to have WSDL-in-RDF
(or DAML-S, or whatever) as part of the resource description and
use a protocol such as URIQA for discovery, based on the URI of
the service in question.

One then can enrich the service description as required by
applications without having to further muck about with the

Once agents are able to easily access descriptions, it simply
becomes a matter of vocabulary and semantics -- whether those
descriptions say anything meaningful to the agent in question.



Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2004 08:59:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:46:17 UTC