Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:58:17 -0500, Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@s...> 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.
|
