Re: [DotGNU]RDF vs UDDI (was Re: Implement RDF...)

[Seth Johnson]

Actually, CTP would render the whole web services arena irrelevant, with all
the various support protocols.  It would supplant "proprietary" protocols
with "pure" generalization.  And it would do it in such a way as to undercut
all these attempts to lay claim to standards.

Seth Johnson

Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
> Tim <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > I didn't hear anyone discuss UDDI.
> 
> The UDDI specs start like this...
> 
> """
> Copyright (C) 2000 - 2002 by Accenture, Ariba, Inc., Commerce One,
> Inc., Fujitsu Limited, Hewlett-Packard Company, i2 Technologies, Inc.,
> Intel Corporation, International Business Machines Corporation,
> Microsoft Corporation, Oracle Corporation, SAP AG, Sun Microsystems,
> Inc., and VeriSign, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
> 
> These UDDI Specifications (the "Documents") are provided by the
> companies named above ("Licensors") under the following license.  By
> using and/or copying this Document, or the Document from which this
> statement is linked, you (the licensee) agree that you have read,
> understood, and will comply with the following terms and conditions:
> 
> Permission to copy, prepare derivative works based on, and distribute
> the contents of this Document, or the Document from which this
> statement is linked, and derivative works thereof, in any medium for
> any purpose and without fee or royalty under copyrights is hereby
> granted, provided that you include the following on ALL copies of the
> document, or portions thereof, that you use:
> 
>  1. A link to the original document posted on uddi.org.
> 
>  2. An attribution statement : "Copyright © 2000 - 2002 by Accenture,
>     Ariba, Inc., Commerce One, Inc. Fujitsu Limited, Hewlett-Packard
>     Company, i2 Technologies, Inc.,  Intel Corporation, International
>     Business Machines Corporation,  Microsoft Corporation, Oracle
>     Corporation, SAP AG, Sun Microsystems, Inc., and VeriSign, Inc.
>     All Rights Reserved."
> 
> If the Licensors own any patents or patent applications that may be
> required for implementing and using the specifications contained in
> the Document in products that comply with the specifications, upon
> written request, a non-exclusive license under such patents shall be
> granted on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.
> """
> 
> What these companies call "reasonable and non-discriminatory terms" is
> in fact totally unreasonable from a Free Software perspective.  So
> unreasonable in fact that _if_ "the Licensors own any patents or
> patent applications that may be required for implementing and using
> the specifications" then any implementation will not be truly Free
> Software even if you try to release it under GPL.
> 
> > What are the advantages of RDF?
> 
> In total contrast to the above, if/when necessary, W3C will fight
> together with us against any patent claims threatening the freedom of
> RDF.  (There have been some, IMO totally ridiculous, patent claims, see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2002Jan/0076.html
> for some info.  AFAIK the holders of those patents have not pursued the
> matter further, so please don't revive this ridiculous matter.  However
> please read http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/w3c-patent.html ... the new
> W3C Proposed Policy of 19 March 2003 still has the policy bug which
> allows for GPL-incompatible patent licenses.  Comments from both W3C
> Members and the public are welcome until 30 April.  The statement in
> http://www.w3.org/2003/03/patentpolicy-pressrelease under the heading
> "W3C Patent License Requirements Consistent with Open Source/Free
> Software Terms"  is not true.)
> 
> The situation that UDDI may potentially be patent-encumbered alone is
> sufficient reason to prefer RDF over UDDI.  In addition IMO there are
> also technical reasons which make RDF more suitable for the purposes
> of DotGNU's service discovery system.  I hope that I may soon find
> some time to write these points up in detail.
> 
> Greetings, Norbert.
> 
> --
> Founder & Steering Committee member of http://gnu.org/projects/dotgnu/
> Free Software Business Strategy Guide   --->  http://FreeStrategy.info
> Norbert Bollow, Weidlistr.18, CH-8624 Gruet (near Zurich, Switzerland)
> Tel +41 1 972 20 59        Fax +41 1 972 20 69       http://norbert.ch
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://www.dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/developers

-- 

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of
this incidentally recorded communication.  Original authorship should be
attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for
usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.