Re: [regrep] RDF Data Access WG Charter

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

John,

Quite.  However - we're crossing numerous bridges - most especially
that you need some kind of server to do RDF content.  Suddenly its
not simple anymore.  And I for one wonder why the W3C is setting
off down this road - when OASIS already has two specifications in
this area - so a third just adds to the confusion - unless as I noted -
the plan is to endorse just one of the OASIS specifications and not
the other... I smell smoke...

DW.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Gillerman" <john.gillerman@sisconet.com>
To: <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 5:31 PM
Subject: RE: [regrep] RDF Data Access WG Charter


> David,
>
> I am not sure what you mean here.  Are you saying that the RDF Net API
> implies centralization of access? Why couldn't distributed servers present
a
> query interface?
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David RR Webber [mailto:david@drrw.info]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 5:12 PM
> To: Chiusano Joseph; Farrukh Najmi
> Cc: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [regrep] RDF Data Access WG Charter
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
>