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: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:53:24 -0500
Message-Id: <6bdd1ce1ba3dd223297700cf39449762@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: public-sws-ig <public-sws-ig@w3.org>, Amit Sheth <amit@cs.uga.edu>
To: David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>

A small technical point which may have been brought up before. (I can't 
really speak to the politics since 1) I've been traveling for the past 
two weeks and haven't caught up and, alas, am unlikely to be able to 
and 2) as y'all know from the workshop I'm a bit resistant to moving to 
a working group in this area, though this one seems somewhat scoped.) 
One difference between the WSDL-S and OWL-S, as I understand it, 
approaches that might now be mooted by WSDL 2.0 but is perhaps worth 
raising is that  OWL-S descriptions are, in general practice, out of 
band annotations on the WSDL document. That is, the OWL-S document 
points to the WSDL document and doesn't *require* any modifications to 
the WSDL. This allows for multiple variant descriptions, perhaps from 
third parties.

Now some of this may be mooted by the RDF mapping...but probably not :) 
In any case, there are clear advantages to the "out of band" annotation 
approach, especially for adoption, so I would like to see such support 
explored by a working group.

(In other words, it's not just integrating with WSDL the spec via 
extension but integrating with deployed WSDL documents that is an 
issue.)

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Saturday, 19 November 2005 17:53:30 GMT

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