Matthew Gertner wrote:
>
>...
> ---
> Then you have the option of thinking of your web services as conforming to
> the "SOAP web services model" or "Paul's web services model." If you choose
> the former then you get access to SOAP libraries, SOAP development toolkits
> (which will be much more sophisticated for developing distributed
> applications than REST), SOAP-enabled services like Google, etc. If you
> choose the latter then you have to reinvent all that stuff.
>
> SOAP web services will handle RPC functionality, content encoding and will
> probably also support protocols other than HTTP.
> ---
>
> Sound familiar? I think the analogy is valid. But if I have to go on an
> evangelical quest like you have for REST... well, that's a pretty daunting
> prospect. Hell, I'll probably go for it anyway.
Well, the devil is the details. I've studied the standard web services
architecture and found it wanting. I don't understand why you WANT to
replace the RDF Model (not its syntax...I've already said you could use
the model without the syntax). Can you convince anyone that there's
something seriously wrong with the RDF model and that you know how to
fix it?
Paul Prescod
