- From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 13:22:36 -0400
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF00097848.A441BBAA-ON85256C13.005338A4-85256C13.005F5FE2@rchland.ibm.com>
Please see below. Cheers, Christopher Ferris Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com phone: +1 508 234 3624 Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote on 08/12/2002 11:01:34 AM: > On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 09:45:38AM -0400, Christopher B Ferris wrote: > > > > Mark, > > > > And there is much that SOAP/WSDL do that RDF doesn't. > > Yes, but very little of it is necessary when you don't have a priori > knowledge of the type of service you're interacting with, as the Web > presumes. I won't even bother to comment on this but to say of course it is, it's just displaced. > > SOAP/WSDL, in common use, presupposes that when the code is written, > it knows the difference between a thermometer and a television. REST > does not. REST has nothing to do with it. SOAP itself doesn't know the difference between a television and a thermometer. Neither do WSDL or XML Schema. It is the application which "knows" the difference, whether the semantics are baked into the code or inferred at runtime. > > > There is NOTHING that prevents one from using RDF in the context of Web > > services technologies (e.g. carrying RDF graphs in the SOAP header or > > body, > > extending WSDL with RDF, or even representing a WSDL description using > > RDF), or not as one sees fit. > > There's nothing that *prevents* RDF from being used with SOAP/WSDL, but > as I said, the earlier form of binding with SOAP/WSDL makes RDF > unnecessary (note, this is a *bad* thing 8-). To which earlier form of binding are you referring? Note there is a distinct difference between being unnecessary and [ex|pre]cluded. Are you suggesting that use of RDF is/was at anytime [ex|pre]cluded? I believe that for some, the fact that RDF was/is unnecessary is considered to be a "good thing(tm)". For others, the fact that RDF is or could be supported is a "good thing(tm)". Providing for both approaches is a "good thing(tm)". Excluding either would be a mistake. This is the balance we seek. > > MB > -- > Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) > Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org > http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Monday, 12 August 2002 14:00:42 UTC