Re: [regrep] RDF Data Access WG Charter

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Joe,

This is interesting.  If the RDF Net API is truely a remote access device,
then this represents a FUNDAMENTAL and huge 180' about turn for
Tim Bernes-Lee and the W3C.

For the past ten years the mantra has been - NO single point of failure -
ALL content must be locally addressable.  Hence all the architecture
around schema parsers,  DOM, RDF files and more - where
everything is using URL includes and local copies in memory.
And definately NO stinking registries / remote referencing as the web
must be fault tolerant - hence the DNS system, and multiple routing paths
for content, et al.

So - if they are changing their position here - then it represents
a major opportunity for ebXML Registry to become a component
in the W3C landscape, especially federated registry.

However - something tells me that its not that simple - and there
are loads of gotchas - and instead of making it simple and
clean - there's opportunity to make it as complex as possible.

I wonder what the likelihood of them endorsing an ISO (aka OASIS registry)
specification - of course if it was just an OASIS spec' - that # is 0.00% -
but
now ISO - they already using ISO language codes, et al, so that makes it
interesting.... I'd say # is probably 5.00% / +- 2%

DW.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>
To: "Farrukh Najmi" <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>
Cc: <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: [regrep] RDF Data Access WG Charter


> <Quote1>
> Do you think that if ebXML Registry version 4 provides first class
> support for publish and discovery of RDF and OWL content that it would
> essentially be providing all the functionality provided by the RDF Net
> API? If so am I correct to assume that it would actually provide a
> super-set of functionality of RDF Net API?
> </Quote1>
>
> Actually, I was thinking of it in the opposite way - that ebXML Registry
> could provide an interface to RDF Net API, in which the RDF Net API
> operations could be translated real-time into ebXML Registry operations.
> Does that make any sense?
>
> <Quote2>
> Also, did you get any sense of whether RDF Net API was on a standards
> track anywhere yet?
> </Quote2>
>
> The only information mentioned was that it had been submitted to W3C in
> October.
>
> Thanks,
> Joe
>
> Farrukh Najmi wrote:
> >
> > Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> >
> > >Farrukh,
> > >
> > >Thanks for this information. I attended an XML 2003 session [1] given
by
> > >Graham Moore (co-author, RDF Net API) that covered RDF Data Access, and
> > >found it very interesting.
> > >
> > >Joe
> > >
> > >[1] "Semantic Web Servers - Engineering the Semantic Web":
> > >http://www.xmlconference.org/xmlusa/2003/thursday.asp#35
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I did not attend that session. Do you think that if ebXML Registry
> > version 4 provides first class support for publish and discovery of RDF
> > and OWL content that it would essentially be providing all the
> > functionality provided by the RDF Net API? If so am I correct to assume
> > that it would actually provide a super-set of functionality of RDF Net
API?
> >
> > Also, did you get any sense of whether RDF Net API was on a standards
> > track anywhere yet? Thanks.
> >
> > Happy new year everyone.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Farrukh
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php.