- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 15:27:47 -0500
- To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 12:48:24PM -0700, Champion, Mike wrote: > 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. Yah, I don't like that right now, but I like that we've said that all Web services have URIs. 8-) > 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! Agreed. When we talk requirements, this will certainly be a hot topic. MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Monday, 1 April 2002 15:22:14 UTC