SW-Mapping to OOP Model

[Garfield <xmlstar@gmail.com>]

Hi All,

   Thanks for the overflowing information on the Semantic Web, and its
mysteries. Seems to be demystified for the most part of it. Well, I
had another thought in my mind, which I thought worthwhile sharing
with you folks.
Are there mappings defined between the Semantic Web and Programming Models ?
For the most part, schemas and Class definitions resemble in the way
they are modeled by
a) The way they define the scope of an Object
b) The way it allows extensibility
c) The way it allows constricting values that Objects can hold
d) Helping avoid name clashes through packages/ namespace declarations.
e) Reference of Objects within another definition
f)  its goes on ...... gurus cd add more


Well, they mostly map one to one, except that captruing an XML Schema
as a Java Object might not be trivial in some cases. I've read some
articles on it sometime back.

But what about inherent programmatic support for semantic
discovery/integration of Objects ? Is there an existing infrastructure
that allows Objects to seamlessly discover/interact based on their
semantic annotations, in a synchronous /asynchronous environment,
without needing to make them web service enabled?.

For instance, while designing a WSDL, the Modeler can annotate the
Port types and Operations for usage by Service Requestors or Agents.

Similarly, in the Programming Model, a Class/Interface, methods and
even critical fields can be annotated through some existing mechanism
and expose them for usage by the consumer objects.

This looks similar to a Javadoc that describes what a class can do,
what operations it supports, and what are its fields. What I am asking
for something more than a documentation, but a more formal definition.

It will help understand what a class is, and what it can do, and have
common agreement between all objects on the usage of a particular
object.

I am not sure if this has just some theoretical relevance, or if this
is just trash - I am just feeling too enthu about this thought -
wanted your thoughts and light on this.

-Gar