• From: Simon Fell <soap@z...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:49:32 -0800

On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 12:07:48 -0500 (EST), in soap you wrote:

[snip]

>On the other hand, both specs suffer from painfully muddled design --
>the RDF spec dumps reification and knowledge-representation junk on
>top of what would have been a simple foundation, while the SOAP spec
>mixes protocol and format (-20 each).

care to elaborate ?, i thought the 1.1 soap spec made a clear
distinction between the serialization format, and its transport over
HTTP.

Cheers
Simon
www.pocketsoap.com

• References:
  • Re: Success factors for the Web and Semantic Web
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
  • Re: Success factors for the Web and Semantic Web
    • From: Robin Berjon <robin@k...>
  • Academia needed the Web (Re: Success factors for the Web and SemanticWeb)
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: Academia needed the Web (Re: Success factors for the Web andSemanticWeb)
    • From: Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@q...>
  • Re: Academia needed the Web (Re: Success factors for the Web andSemanticWeb)
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: Academia needed the Web (Re: Success factors for the WebandSemanticWeb)
    • From: Dave Winer <dave@u...>
  • RDF vs. SOAP serialization (oh yeah, and XMI and XTM)
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Academia needed the Web (Re: Success factors for the WebandSemanticWeb)
• Next by Date: Re: Academia needed the Web (Re: Success factors for theWebandSemanticWeb)
• Previous by thread: RE: RDF vs. SOAP serialization (oh yeah, and XMI and XTM)
• Next by thread: Re: Academia needed the Web (Re: Success factors for the WebandSemanticWeb)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread