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

Re: Semantics for Web Services Characterization

From: David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:33:30 -0800
Message-ID: <4382BBBA.7060402@ai.sri.com>
To: Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org>
CC: "Battle, Steven Andrew" <steve.battle@hp.com>, public-sws-ig@w3.org, www-ws@w3.org

Hi Carine -

a couple comments below ..

Carine Bournez wrote:
> 
> 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. 

Note that Steve's proposed language does not say anything about 
"restricting" the scope to ... existing technologies.  It uses the 
phrase "such as", which has a similar meaning to "for example".

> The goal
> is to derive the functionalities from the use cases, not from the
> technologies developed in the area.

Yes, that's a very strong point.  But then why mention WSDL-S?  If the 
primary motivation is to avoid any tendency to derive use cases or 
functionalities from particular technologies, then it would make sense 
not to mention any particular technologies.  A phrase like "follow in 
the footprints of technology X" is extremely vague and could very easily 
be misinterpreted as guidance towards identifying functionalities that 
could build on technology X, which, as you say, is to be avoided.  I 
would recommend simplifying as follows:

"The mission of the Semantics for Web Services Characterization Group is
to study the field of applications and identify key points that are not 
immediately solved using Web services technologies."

Regards,
David
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2005 06:33:56 GMT

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