Subject: RE: [regrep] RDF Data Access WG Charter
Farrukh, Can you elaborate more on your ideas here. If the RDF API supports the ebXML submit/approve/deprecate/remove workflow and has a sufficiently powerful query mechanism, why wouldn't an RDF API completely meet our registry API needs? Would we want to find out if RDF DA WG is interested in supporting our use cases? It seems that the best thing would be the unification of the two API's. I fully agree that submitting requirements to or just following the progress of the RDF DA WG is a good thing. John -----Original Message----- From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM] Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 2:46 PM To: email@example.com Subject: Re: [regrep] RDF Data Access WG Charter Chiusano Joseph wrote: >Farrukh, > >Thanks for this information. I attended an XML 2003 session  given by >Graham Moore (co-author, RDF Net API) that covered RDF Data Access, and >found it very interesting. > >Joe > > "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.