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

Re: Semantics for Web Services Characterization

From: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@pi4tech.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:22:44 +0000
Message-Id: <d9709f91b710c489c7c6bfe44337ddca@pi4tech.com>
Cc: "Carine Bournez" <carine@w3.org>, <public-sws-ig@w3.org>, <www-ws@w3.org>
To: "Battle, Steven Andrew" <steve.battle@hp.com>

Bit late joining this discussion but I wanted to pick up on something 
Steve said.
Namely  "The proposal is to find out and demonstrate what can't be 
achieved
with the current Web Services technologies.". One of the missing pieces
as I see it is defining the bahvior of a single service. In WS-CDL we 
define the
common and collaborative behaviour. We have need for an end point view
of behavior that is sound so that we can project to it. It seems to me 
that such
behavior is pretty important for any understanding of semantics which 
might
be used for composition (statically or dynamically). Any thoughts on 
this?

Kohei Honda, Nobuko Yoshida and Marco Carbone will have some input on
this as part of their work on formalisation underpining WS-CDL. They 
have a
precise description of an end-point language that does just this. The 
chances
are in will become a working note from WS-Choreography WG so you would
be welcome to pick it up and run with it.

I'd be interested to hear more on what the ideas are around behavioral 
semantics.
Any comments?

Cheers

Steve T


On 17 Nov 2005, at 23:04, Battle, Steven Andrew wrote:

>
> 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 Friday, 18 November 2005 11:23:02 GMT

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