Re: RDF::RDF Proposal

Philippe Jausions wrote:

Lukas Smith wrote:

Paul M Jones wrote:

Hi, It's past the comment time, I know, but I don't see that RDF needs to be its own top-level category. I understand that XML is not appropriate, because there are other formats for RDF. For example, why would one of these existing categories not be appropriate?

    Services::RDF (RDF is obviously a web service)

its not really a webservice in the classic sense .. atleast it needs a transport layer added on to be useful.

I think RDF is well inline with SOAP and UDDI which are both under "web services" and kept their names as-is.

RDF alone has nothing to do with Web Services. You can only use RDF in web services if you send it within a SOAP or XML-RPC request. Additionally, this package is for PARSING RDF - that certainly is not a web service. RDF should be top category, though I kinda like the Semantic Web Category too, this paves the way for other semantic web based packages (say, for OWL or DAML+OIL). - Davey

This is a wake up call before the package gets approved without people giving full thought about it...

The proposal has been around since May, I think enough thoughts have been given. - Davey