- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 10:06:30 -0400
- To: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Cc: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>, WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 09:08:06AM -0400, Arthur Ryman wrote: > Jacek, > > Yes, WSMO counts. Our position is that the if the proponents of semantic > Web do not think the RDF mapping is a high priority, then we agree that > this deliverable can be dropped. OWL-S is the most obvious proponent in > the contenxt of W3C since OWL is already a W3C speciifcation and this > requirement comes from W3C. I understand that WSMO has been submitted to > W3C, which gives WSMO folks like you a legitimate claim to do this RDF > mapping work. That fact that WSMO also has an Eclipse editor makes me even > more supportive of you doing the work :-) FWIW -- though I'm speaking here only as the UMD alternate to this group, not as a DAWG member -- the DAWG also has some medium and long term interest in the RDF mapping. We're using WSDL 2 to specify our protocol for accessing RDF triple stores over HTTP (and, probably, SOAP), and we also want to build, eventually, some domain-specific vocabulary for describing RDF query processing services. Which is a natural for RDF. With an RDF mapping of WSDL, we can merge all of this stuff together and be happy little clams. Take this as merely another point of information. :> Cheers, Kendall Clark
Received on Thursday, 28 July 2005 14:08:31 UTC