W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-swsc@w3.org > January 2008

Re: How to proceed wrt publishing solutions?

From: Ulrich Küster <Ulrich.Kuester@uni-jena.de>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:44:01 +0100
Message-ID: <479D87C1.30904@uni-jena.de>
To: member-xg-swsc@w3.org
CC: public-xg-swsc@w3.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

|  I agree with B) in principle, but I don't know that everyone should
| follow your format.

I just would like to clarify, that I never suggested everyone should
follow my format (which is why I also pointed out flaws of my approach).
I just suggested to come up with guidelines for a format like your
suggestions which provide an excellent start.

|  1) A common machine readable format such as XML, KIF, SAWSDL, or
something
|   for which there exists available free parsers and/or well-published
|   specification.

I don't like this one. The requirement of the existence of
well-published specifications is a quite sloppy one. What is
well-published? We should definitely allow everyone to use the formalism
of their choice, even if it is not as standard as XML or KIF but - for
instance - the rules used by Tiziana or DSD. :-)

|  2) The content should be useful for solving the problem(s). An
|   example would be an ontology for time that enables different
|   problems to be solved with a minimal change. It might be
|   a way of annotating the WSDL so that a problem solver can
|   work with it more automatically.

This addresses the issue of promoting reuse. That's a fair issue but I
would like to put more importance on promoting the general understanding
for the nature and approach of the solutions than the reuse of elements
of them.

|  3) The content should illustrate some principles of the approach
|   that others can evaluate the utility of it, perhaps deciding
|   to adapt and re-use it.

Certainly!

|  4) The content should understandable without having to install
|   a large system, but it is desirable that there be a pointer
|   to a working system that will consume the content. The more
|   information about the working context of the system, better.

I agree. I would add and stress that the content should enable the
reader to understand a particular solution on the technical level and
preferably get a solution running (after all running and implemented
solutions is what the challenge is about). I only get a real feeling for
an approach if I have used it to solve a concrete problem. As an
example, I do not only want to see the time ontologies of the other
approaches, I want to see how they actually described the services and
goals to get a feeling which problems have been expressed and solved how.

Maybe we need to come up with a scenario specific list of items to be
adressed. For discovery for instance I would really like to see all
services and goals and I would like to see how the data-mediation and
the integration of dynamic information was done. I would like to ask for
a certain completeness of the upload itself and the documentation of the
upload.

Best regards,

Uli
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
Comment: GnuPT 2.9.2

iD8DBQFHnYe/8VxeCU3I0jARAtDZAJ0UCSYTevx5qsLCQkE/8tRwmDs/hgCeJyRr
amvJzvh9tBrqECd0T4DujyY=
=fZqh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Monday, 28 January 2008 07:44:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 5 December 2008 07:53:21 GMT