- From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 12:48:24 -0700
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] > Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 2:42 PM > To: Champion, Mike > Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org > Subject: Re: Summary: D-AG0009 > > RDF is very general, and is designed as a framework for describing > *anything*. I don't think Web services fall outside that scope. 8-) Fair enough. It's generality is not an issue for me ... it's simplicity, understandability, implementation efficiency, and general cost/benefit ratio is yet to be demonstrated in the Web Services context, IMHO. To pick a possibly trivial example, RDF assertions are about a "resource" identified by a URI; how will that work when the web service is really identified by a SOAP message? I know that you don't like this situation (I don't either!) but that is the reality on the ground today, and in the short term future. We've got enough problems reconciling the web services architecture with the web architecture, whatever that is, and with reality, whatever that turns out to be, to accept strong requirements about the architecture being expressible in RDF/DAML+OIL/whatever. I hope we use every bit of SW-related technology that makes our job easier ... but no more!
Received on Monday, 1 April 2002 14:48:59 UTC