Re: D-AC009.2 discussion points and proposal(s)

On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 09:28:06AM -0700, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote:
> With respect to the proponents of the Semantic Web and RDF -- I agree with
> this and I am glad to see it articulated.  I am feeling a certain urgency in
> getting things out the door, so that this working group may be not be viewed
> as a obstacle to progress.

I understand that urgency, but I'm trying to say that we're currently
on a path (with our usage scenarios doc, and current practice with SOAP)
to produce something that has very little to do with the Web.

We can either put this off, work to produce something, then find out it
isn't Web architecture friendly and be sent back to the drawing board.
Or we can take some time to learn what Web architecture is now so that
we won't have these problems in the future.

One way or the other we'll have to confront this.  I suggest that doing
it now will save us more time than doing it later.

I've heard from Eric, that he wants to extend the Web, and I applaud him
for saying that.  It *is* what we need to do here.  But hopefully, as
the recent wrist-slap that XMLP got for not supporting GET with SOAP
shows, a lot of work with SOAP up to this point (which only used POST)
has had little to do with the Web.

See these for example, about Google's API and UDDI, two systems which
don't use Web architecture, and use POST to do things that would be
much much simpler and easier (and Web architecture friendly) to do with
GET;

http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/04/24/google.html
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/02/06/rest.html

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, 27 May 2002 13:10:04 UTC