Re: D-AG0009; Semantic Web & Web architecture

> So, how should 9 relate to 11 then? I guess 11 is the Web as it is today, 9
> relates to the abstract model of the Web promulgated by the W3C?  

I see 11 as identifying two specific architectural points;
"distributed" (was this intended to be "decentralized"?), and
"heterogenous environment" (presumably referring to programming
languages, operating systems, etc..).  9, by virtue of "align with web
architecture", covers these, IMO.

> Also, is "machine automation" part of our mission?

The working Web service definition we came up with suggests it is, IMO,
when it says ".. supports direct interactions with other software
applications or components ..".

>  One can agree it's a
> good thing, and certainly related to whatever we mean when we say that a web
> service is about the web being processable by machines, not just humans.
> But we don't want to set the bar too high: web services  enable hard-coded
> programs to communicate via the web (much as they can with DCOM or CORBA
> over LANs), whereas the semantic web is about enabling more flexible,
> data-driven, and "intelligent" use of the data on the web, no?

No.  Hard coded programs can already talk over the Web via HTTP's
methods.  Only, because every HTTP component exposes the same generic
interface (GET/PUT/POST, etc..), you don't know the specific type of
the resource you're dealing with.  The Semantic Web gives you that
information (to start - it goes well beyond that, of course).

So ... my suggestion would be one goal.  I could live with two goals
though - I don't think it's that big a deal.  I'm just raising the topic
of Web architecture now, because my impression is that many WG members
have not received much exposure to it.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com

Received on Friday, 8 March 2002 21:49:38 UTC