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

Re: Options we have with respect to the draft charters (i.e., RE: [fwd] Draft charters for work on Semantics for WS)

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:20:30 -0500
Message-Id: <p062309e9bfa3f4a70dcf@[]>
To: "Amit Sheth @ LSDIS" <amit@cs.uga.edu>, public-sws-ig@w3.org
Amit - a draft charter has significant impact on the WG, and we are 
not discussing the issues of primality of publication, but of 
multiple approaches and how much we want to tie the hands of the WG. 
I agree with the group that holds that boht the OWL-S grounding and 
WSDL-S must be equally considered in defining the standard (and I'll 
go on record now as an AC member that I would oppose a charter that 
chooses EITHER one of these over the other - and want both equally 
mentioned).  Also, I think it is critical that a dependency be 
created between this work and the RDF mapping produced by the WSD WG, 
again, this is mandated by W3C process and our goals as a WG - we're 
not trying to stamp out recs (go to OASIS if you want that :-)) but 
to get a working solution with significant buy-in that doesn't lock 
out anyone's approach.
  by the way, I assume by the fact that you were one of the submitters 
of the WSDL-S note that you are claiming your patent does not affect 
this work

At 13:41 -0500 11/18/05, Amit Sheth @ LSDIS wrote:
We need to decide how we want to focus our energy--

(a) positively to come up with recommendations that vendors and W3 
community would likely embrace


(b) in academic debates related to  who put up something in a draft 
document posted on the web first, who discussed the idea in a stable 
version first, who did in an invited talk first, or who did so in a 
refereed publication first.

My suggestion is to deal with (b) separately, preferably one-on-one first,
as side meetings at conferences/workshops next, and as the last 
resort, in writing review to submitted papers.

Then I can point out that in our refereed ICWS03 paper 
Semantics to Web Services Standards (2003),
we had cited v0.6 draft of OWL-S, giving it due credit, while 
discussing clear distinction wrt our WSDL-S
approach. And I can share a long list of examples of ignoring of METEOR-S's
contribution to the area, such as proposing functional semantics/ontology (with
RosettaNet use case and ontology) or non-functional semantics and
QoS ontology.

I suggest we get back to (a), and whatever the outcome, one of us
(I can volunteer my students) make an annotated bibliography of all work on
either or both of the charters Carine has outlined.  An example of 
use of positive energy
is in an on-going WSMO-WSDL-S collaboration that would show how more 
comprehensive models
such as WSMO can use WSDL-S as grounding (see 
While talking about languages/representations/features, let us not forget the
prototyping/tooling/use cases (has that been done for a given idea?)
and all those things that make anything real to potential
technology adopters.

In my analysis, the key driving factor for the two proposed charters 
is to limit their scope
such that tangible results can be reached in a reasonable period. 
Hence the identification of WSDL-S
as a starting point may be seen in this context, rather than an attempt
to attribute to WSDL-S all the scientific/research credit for various 
SWS features and capabilities,
many of which are shared with (and some built upon) other illustrious 

Amit Sheth  (speaking personally, rather than for the WSDL-S team)

Professor James Hendler			  Director
Joint Institute for Knowledge Discovery	 	  301-405-2696
UMIACS, Univ of Maryland			  301-314-9734 (Fax)
College Park, MD 20742			  http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler 
(New course: http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler/CMSC498w/)
Received on Friday, 18 November 2005 21:21:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:54:15 UTC