[topicmapmail] How to address Web resources with XTM?

[Kal Ahmed]

Graham Moore wrote:

>Hi Jan, 
>
>I am working on Semantic descriptions of REST web services using RDF and
>Topic Maps.
>
>So far I have adopted a pattern where the abstract notion of the service
>exists as a subject and thus is captured within the TM as a Topic with a
>subject indicator.
>  
>
Which is exactly the approach of UDDI too AFAIK

>Then because a given service or service capability could be deployed in
>different locations then I use either typed occurrence (end-point) or an
>association (again end-point to a topic with a subject address.
>
>I think this a) preserves the subtleties of what is happening and b) is
>practical and useful for meta level services that utilise the descriptions.
>  
>
The separation between the "service" and the "service end points" is a 
vital one to preserve.

>In terms of resources I think this same idea can apply (and has done for a
>while in information science) where you make a distinction between the
>concept of the work and a representation of the work.
>
>I would like to get around to adding this pattern (or something like it) to
>topicmap central.
>  
>
Please do!

>Do you think this is a helpful distinction to make?
>  
>
Absolutely - and I think it would be interesting to see how that 
distinction meshes with registry standards like UDDI and service 
description standards such as WSCI.

Cheers,

Kal

>- graham
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: topicmapmail-admin@infoloom.com
>[mailto:topicmapmail-admin@infoloom.com] On Behalf Of Jan Algermissen
>Sent: 14 March 2004 12:56
>To: Lars Marius Garshol
>Cc: topicmapmail@infoloom.com
>Subject: Re: [topicmapmail] How to address Web resources with XTM?
>
>Hi Lars--
>
>(sorry for never following up on this thread..I am just too busy).
>
>
>Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
>  
>
>>* Jan Algermissen
>>|
>>| Because <resourceRef> is intended (IMHO) to address data (bits and
>>| bytes) and not abstractions of data. On the Web, topic maps 
>>| neccessarily ignore the fact that a URL never refers to bits and 
>>| bytes but the intention of <resourceRef> does not change by that.
>>
>>We agree on that. What I am saying is that the thing addressed by the 
>>URI (the bits and bytes, as you say) is a different subject from the 
>>abstract service itself, but that there is a relationship between 
>>them. This I think you agree with.
>>
>>What I am saying is that this means you can create one topic for each 
>>of the two subjects and represent the relationship between them as an 
>>association.
>>
>>That should do what you want, shouldn't it?
>>    
>>
>
>IMHO no. The problem I have is that we ultimately only have two
>possibilities (and I am not proposing to change that, BTW) to use a URI to
>address a subject:
>
>1) via <resourceRef>
>2) via <subjectIndicatorRef>
>
>In 1) we agree that the actual bits and bytes (the return of a GET) is the
>subject (ignoring the addressing indirection of HTTP)
>
>In 2) the subject is what the bits and bytes *are about* and these are
>usually not about the service itself that is producing the bytes.
>
>Furthermore, what if you have a service that does not even produce any
>representation (maybe only accepts POST and does processing on that data)?
>
>Again: I want to address the service and not what any bits and bytes
>obtained via GET are talking about.
>
>With RDF this is straightforward (just use the URI of the service in your
>statements) and I don't want Topic Maps to 'fall behind' here.
>
>Jan
>  
>
>>--
>>Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
>>GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>topicmapmail mailing list
>>topicmapmail@infoloom.com
>>http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
>>    
>>
>
>  
>