W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sws-ig@w3.org > November 2005

RE: Semantics for Web Services Characterization

From: Battle, Steven Andrew <steve.battle@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:04:37 -0000
Message-ID: <DE62D3D0BDEF184FBB5089C7D387C37449B5A6@sdcexc04.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Carine Bournez" <carine@w3.org>
Cc: <public-sws-ig@w3.org>, <www-ws@w3.org>

Carine,

I'm relieved to hear that the 'characterization' activity is intended to
consider a wide variety of solutions that build on WSDL. It would be
good to see this intent clarified in the charter document. I know I'm
beginning to sound like a stuck record but I believe that WSDL-S, OWL-S
and WSMO all build on WSDL and deserve equal mention. Alternatively, the
focus should be entirely on the use-cases in which case no specific
technologies need be referenced.

Steve.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carine Bournez [mailto:carine@w3.org] 
> Sent: 17 November 2005 17:37
> To: Battle, Steven Andrew
> Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org; www-ws@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Semantics for Web Services Characterization
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> Let me try to clarify the intent (it seems to me that there 
> is a deep misunderstanding).
> 
> > Given this rich context to draw on, it surprises me that the 
> > 'characterization' charter seems to limit itself almost 
> exclusively to 
> > "solutions like WSDL-S", which I read as invocation and a bit of 
> > discovery. This really isn't going to attract many relevant 
> scenarios.
> 
> The charter does not limit itslef to solutions like WSDL-S. 
> The idea is to think about building a technology stack, 
> starting from WSDL, adding some semantic extensions (generic 
> enough to be able to build on top of these) and continue on 
> those footprints. The goal is precisely to define the scope 
> of what could be done (invocation? discovery? more?).
> The proposal is to find out and demonstrate what can't be 
> achieved with the current Web Services technologies.
> 
> > Given that the mission is to analyse "real-scale applications", why 
> > eliminate composition, mediation, validation from the outset? For 
> > example, there's great opportunity here to work with the 
> SWS 'mediation'
> > Challenge <http://deri.stanford.edu/challenge/2006/> 
> organised by DERI 
> > Stanford.
> 
> Again, the charter does not exclude any of those, because 
> those particular "key points" should be determined by the group.
> 
> > "The mission of the Semantics for Web Services 
> Characterization Group 
> > is to continue in the footprints of solutions like WSDL-S and study 
> > the field of applications and identify key points that are not 
> > immediately solved using Web services technologies."
> > 
> > could be changed to something like:
> > 
> > "The mission of the Semantics for Web Services 
> Characterization Group 
> > is to study the field of applications addressed by 
> technologies such 
> > as WSDL-S, OWL-S, WSMO and SWSF and to identify key points that are 
> > not immediately solved using Web services technologies."
> 
> Restricting the scope to the fields that are already 
> addressed by existing technologies is IMHO a bad idea for 
> characterization. The goal is to derive the functionalities 
> from the use cases, not from the technologies developed in the area.
> 
> I hope this helps.
> 
> --
> Carine Bournez -+- W3C Sophia-Antipolis 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2005 23:05:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 16 March 2008 00:11:02 GMT