- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 14:19:16 -0400
- To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 10:15:35AM -0700, David Orchard wrote: > > > I would rather it not be reopened too. But I think that the recent > > flurry of acknowledgements that Web services have little to > > do with the > > Web, certainly puts it in a new light. > > > > What flurry of acknowledgements? There has been no such thing. http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/04/24/taglines.html http://staging.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/05/10/020510hnsoapdebate.xml http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/04/24/google.html > If the GETF task force is to be believed, in 2 weeks or so, SOAP 1.2 will be > a better citizen in the web. SOAP 1.2, the spec, is already a fine citizen. People's misuse of it is what is harmful. I don't expect that use to change much (if at all) because we support GET. > There is no jurisprudence there. It is not surprising that a "Web Service > Description", where a web service is a web resource, should have a "resource > description" in RDF. But that doesn't apply to the overall WSA. You obviously have a very narrow view of the descriptive capabilities of RDF. "Description" is good for more than interfaces, it's good for describing all sorts of relationships, such as those between producers, suppliers, retailers, resellers, products, component parts, etc.. Everything, basically. MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 14:23:53 UTC