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

RE: Semantics for Web Services Characterization

From: Battle, Steven Andrew <steve.battle@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:08:43 -0000
Message-ID: <DE62D3D0BDEF184FBB5089C7D387C374555B61@sdcexc04.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: "David Martin" <martin@AI.SRI.COM>, "Carine Bournez" <carine@w3.org>
Cc: <public-sws-ig@w3.org>, <www-ws@w3.org>

David,

I agree that the goal should be to derive the functionalities from the
use-cases, so I think your simplified suggestion, mentioning NO
technologies, is _my_ favoured solution. 

If people feel we don't live in a purely use-case driven world (gasp),
then the _next_ best option is to cite any W3C submission (in the
semantic web-service space) that will support the process by studying
the use-cases they anticipate. Approximately, WSDL-S : invocation &
discovery; OWL-S : composition (service as process) & discovery; WSMO :
discovery (service as value) & mediation; SWSF : validation.

Either way the technology itself isn't important. The worst of all
options, of course, is to attempt to characterize all potential
use-cases in terms of a single technology.

Steve.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Martin [mailto:martin@AI.SRI.COM] 
> Sent: 22 November 2005 06:34
> To: Carine Bournez
> Cc: Battle, Steven Andrew; public-sws-ig@w3.org; www-ws@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Semantics for Web Services Characterization
> 
> >>"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 12:09:19 GMT

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