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: David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 06:43:24 -0800
Message-ID: <437F3A0C.2040106@ai.sri.com>
To: "Amit Sheth @ LSDIS" <amit@cs.uga.edu>
CC: public-sws-ig@w3.org

Hi Amit -

I assume you are referring to messages posted recently by Steve, 
Massimo, and me, which have included observations about overlapping 
technical ideas in OWL-S and WSDL-S.  With all respect, I don't think 
it's fair to characterize or dismiss these messages as mere academic 
debates.  In fact, none of these messages is primarily concerned with 
the question of attribution.  Most of them are concerned with the 
question of whether OWL-S should be considered as an input to the 
working group.  Surely that is a legitimate question for discussion with 
regards to a proposed WG charter.  In these messages, the primary point 
is simply this: since OWL-S proposed some of the same central approaches 
as are in WSDL-S, why should it not also be considered as an input? 
(There could of course be some qualifications as to which parts are 
relevant to the WG.)

One recent message from me:
is focused on clearing up some possible points of confusion about the 
relationship between OWL-S and WSDL-S.  My primary concern there is to 
show that (parts of) OWL-S and WSDL-S can in fact be used together.  My 
intention is to set the stage for fruitful collaboration in the context 
of this WG, if it happens.

Note that the last third or so of the abstract of the WSDL-S submission 
is devoted to an attempt to argue that WSDL-S is superior to OWL-S.  In 
such a case, some response in a public forum may well be expected!  The 
abstract is the most visible part of a document.  I would ask you to be 
sensitive to the fact that the WSDL-S submission, especially if it 
becomes an input to a W3C WG, will be visited many times by many people.

Best regards,

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
> or
> (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  Adding Semantics 
> to Web Services Standards (2003) 
> <http://lsdis.cs.uga.edu/lib/download/SVSM03-ICWS-final.pdf>,
> 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 
> http://www.wsmo.org/TR/d30/v0.1/
> or 
> http://lsdis.cs.uga.edu/projects/meteor-s/wsdl-s/WSMX-Meteor-S-interoperability-final.pdf).
> 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 
> submissions.
> Regards,
> Amit Sheth  (speaking personally, rather than for the WSDL-S team)
> http://lsdis.cs.uga.edu/~amit
Received on Saturday, 19 November 2005 14:43:39 UTC

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