[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:58:17 -0500, Simon St.Laurent
<simonstl@simonstl.com> wrote:
>
> Could you explain this one a bit more?
Wild shot in the dark: WSDL identifies the machine-processable syntax of
the interaction between a web service provider and consumer. RDDL provides
a human readable description of the semantics of the service (and
potentially a machine processable description, if RDDL stays in the RDF
realm and an instance contains or points to a rich RDF description.
Clearly both the semantic understanding and the syntax of the interaction
are needed. David Booth has a great paper (I hope I'm not jumping the gun
by pointing the world to it!) that emphasizes that humans, and semantic
understanding of what the page/service/etc. that a URI signifies, are
necessary components of a Web services architecture.
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/10/roles_clean.htm
In my opinion, which seems to be shared by many people on the WSA WG, FWIW,
The Web As We Know It is "Scenario 0" in David's framework: The semantics
of the "service" are negotiated totally out of band or inmplicitly
understood by a human reading the page, and the "web service description"
consists solely of the URI.
The Semantic Web could be Scenario N in his framework, where the semantic
descriptions are machine processable and somehow tie into the syntactic
description of the web page or service invocation in a way that a machine
could infer.
Whether or not David's framework can be made to work in a formal
architecture, it represents the SPIRIT of what I think is needed --
integrating the Web, Web services, and the Semantic Web viewpoints as
special cases of one another rather than as alternate "paradigms" that must
be accepted or rejected as dogma.
|
