| 1 | | = Semantic Web Services Overview = |
| 2 | | |
| 3 | | The holy grail of web service interoperability is hampered along three axes: syntax, semantics and interface. In terms of core data syntax, bioinformatics tools consume and produce data in many different formats, some of which are loosely defined syntactically (e.g. legacy flat file formats). In addition, the semantics of what we are trying to do with data, and what we mean by encoding data in a certain way, are often loosely defined. Many file formats are abused and overloaded to add semantics to fields that weren't intended for that (e.g. in comments, definition lines, key/value fields). Lastly, there is a proliferation of interfaces, each of which probably make sense on their own (e.g. RESTful APIs) but they all aren't interoperable in a way that a machine can make sense of by itself. By adopting common standards to define syntax, semantics and interface, different service providers will be able to promote interoperability. Hence, this subgroup consists of people discussing the application of such technologies as WSDL, SAWSDL, OWL, RDF/XML (and other XML tools, i.e. XML schema, transforms). |
| 4 | | |
| | 29 | == Subgroup summary == |
| | 30 | === Why semantic web services === |
| | 31 | The holy grail of web service interoperability is hampered along three axes: syntax, semantics and interface. In terms of core data syntax, bioinformatics tools consume and produce data in many different formats, some of which are loosely defined syntactically (e.g. legacy flat file formats). In addition, the semantics of what we are trying to do with data, and what we mean by encoding data in a certain way, are often loosely defined. Many file formats are abused and overloaded to add semantics to fields that weren't intended for that (e.g. in comments, definition lines, key/value fields). Lastly, there is a proliferation of interfaces, each of which probably make sense on their own (e.g. RESTful APIs) but they all aren't interoperable in a way that a machine can make sense of by itself. By adopting common standards to define syntax, semantics and interface, different service providers will be able to promote interoperability. Hence, this subgroup consists of people discussing the application of such technologies as WSDL, SAWSDL, OWL, RDF/XML (and other XML tools, i.e. XML schema, transforms). |
| | 32 | |
| | 33 | === Technically === |
| | 34 | === Philosophically === |
| | 35 | === State of the practice === |
| | 36 | ==== RDF ==== |
| | 37 | RDF assumes that anything in the world can be described in triples, i.e. statements consisting of subject, predicate, object. RDF/XML is just one serialization of the concept of triples (other ways are M3, JSON, RDFa etc.). An RDF/XML document imports at least two namespaces: rdf and rdfs. |
| | 38 | * Simple example: rdf:Description element defines the subject, rdf:about attribute defines a resource that is the subject. rdfs:label, for example, attaches a human readable label to a subject. |
| | 39 | * Example with more namespaces: subject is now defined on element foaf:Person (again by rdf:about), subject has multiple predicates: foaf:name (his name), foaf:page (which in turn encloses another triple: foaf:Document => dc:title => literal) |
| | 40 | * Real example: a set of triples describing Tim Berners-Lee using foaf, dc, rss, rdfs. |
| | 41 | === State of the art === |
| | 42 | * Who |
| | 43 | ** Current |
| | 44 | ** Willing |
| | 45 | |
| | 46 | |
| | 47 | |
