Re: SAWSDL first working draft

Recently, I quoted Dr. Burstein's statement (2004) regarding the dynamic
invocation of Web services many times, specifically stressed on section
- "various services that do the same kind of job but have different
APIs". This statement means:

1. service semantics (what service does) are not the same as service
interfaces.
2. service semantics can be the same (do the same job) but service
interfaces are different.
3. SWS people already know such fact for a long time

Thus the conclusion is service semantics have no relation with the
service interfaces - service semantics are neutral and independent from
service interfaces. 

>From here, we can see WSDL-S may not be the right approach for SWS as it
targets at service interface (WSDL) other than service semantics (we
have no formal framework to define service semantics yet). 

In W3C Web Service Choreography Interface @ http://www.w3.org/TR/wsci/,
it said "WSDL describes the static interface of a Web Service."

In WSDL-S submission document: http://www.w3.org/Submission/WSDL-S/, we
can see the "Terminology" defined in WSDL-S.

OWL-S people withdrew from such initiation because OWL-S targets at
client-side modeling of Web-based services, but WSDL-S targets at
server-side WSDL interface. It is impossible for them to join together.

Regards,

Xuan



>>> Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu> 08/01/06 2:49 PM >>>

Ok, now it's getting silly, but there was a lot going on in June :)

SAWSDL published it's first working draft at:
	http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-sawsdl-20060630/

(I think! The SAWSDL page only lists editor's drafts.)

It's good to comment on early working drafts. If you don't like  
something, tell them! If you spot a problem, tell them!

It's appropriate to discuss things here or on the SAWSDL comments  
list...er except I don't see where the comments list is on:
	http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/

(Carine?)

I think, in general, that specific comments should definitely go to  
the SAWSDL group directly, but it's reasonable to have high level  
technical discussions in either place. But if you want to have an  
impact on the working group, you should talk to them!

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Wednesday, 2 August 2006 15:53:15 UTC