- From: Farrukh Najmi <farrukh.najmi@sun.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 17:48:22 -0400
- To: Jeff Lansing <jeff@polexis.com>
- CC: "Terry R. Payne" <trp@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, www-ws@w3c.org, "regrep@lists.oasis-open.org" <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>
Jeff Lansing wrote: > > Farrukh Najmi wrote: > >> The plans include direct support for RDF, OWL, DAML-S within the >> Registry Information Model (RIM). > > > What does "direct support" mean here? > > Isn't the overall idea that DAML-S provides a service capabilities > information model (SIM), and the RIM provides a storage model (but we > have just seen that that's just one storage model, UDDI + the earlier > mentioned mapping provide another) in which to represent the SIM? > > So will the direct support just make this representation easier, or > will it somehow "shortcut" across the layers in this layered model idea? <Please note that none of these details have been defined in the current version (2.5) of the specifications./> By direct support I meant evolution of RIM to layer on top of RDF and OWL allowing RIM defined metadata to be more extensible and semantically expressive. RIM ClassificationSchemes could evolve into OWL ontologies which could be used for classifying objects. As for DAML-S, as you correctly observed, a mapping of DAML-S to ebXML Registry can be easily done based upon current version of the specs and could be added as a Technical Note. However, with the "direct support" of RDF and OWL the mapping could take closer advanatage of the new RDF enabled type/attribute extensibility and OWL based ontology/classification support in RIM. -- Farrukh
Received on Friday, 1 August 2003 17:51:04 UTC