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

RE: Semantics for Web Services Characterization

From: <sam.watkins@bt.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:51:58 -0000
Message-ID: <91A1302378CDCE41A2B8229D0BA7E5D566FDFB@I2KM11-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <xshi@GEO.WVU.edu>, <martin@AI.SRI.COM>, <carine@w3.org>
Cc: <steve.battle@hp.com>, <public-sws-ig@w3.org>, <www-ws@w3.org>

I agree with you that complex situations should be considered - after all what use is any solution that is not scalable.
 
However, to temper this, I believe that both a simple and a complex situation need to be considered in parallel.  If a developer or designer has to implement something in a very complex manner because the methodology is only suitable for complex situations, it will take a very long time for SWS to take off.
 
Maybe that is what we're aiming for, a Rolls Royce methodology for highly complex tasks - but I think that would be missing the fact that most things tend to be relatively simple in the currently automated world.
regards,
Sam J Watkins
ICT Solutions Researcher
BT Group Chief Technology Office
___________________________
Office:     +44 1473 647370
Mobile:    + 44 7918 074796
BT Group plc
Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
Registered in England and Wales no. 4190816   This electronic message contains information from BT Group plc which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers or address above) immediately. Activity and use of the BT Group plc E-mail system is monitored to secure its effective operation and for other lawful business purposes. Communications using this system will also be monitored and may be recorded to secure effective operation and for other lawful business purposes. 

________________________________

From: public-sws-ig-request@w3.org on behalf of Shi, Xuan
Sent: Tue 22/11/2005 3:20 PM
To: 'David Martin '; 'Carine Bournez '
Cc: 'Battle, Steven Andrew '; 'public-sws-ig@w3.org '; 'www-ws@w3.org '
Subject: RE: Semantics for Web Services Characterization




I think W3C and this WG can consider more complex situations in developing
semantic Web services rather than such simple business models. There is a
long term effect once we select a way to do things (such as RDF/OWL) while
we need more general approach for semantic Web services rather than tightly
coupled with WSDL since W3C defined Web service as "a software system
designed to support interoperable machine-to-machine interaction over a
network".

-----Original Message-----
From: David Martin
To: Carine Bournez
Cc: Battle, Steven Andrew; public-sws-ig@w3.org; www-ws@w3.org
Sent: 11/22/05 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: Semantics for Web Services Characterization


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 16:58:02 GMT

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