W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > May 2003

Fwd: Report on WS-Description & WS-Architecture Working Groups F2F presentation

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 13:39:40 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030520133911.027ed378@localhost>
To: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>


>Resent-Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 05:53:59 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Sender: hendler@dormouse.cs.umd.edu
>Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 05:53:41 -0400
>To: w3c-semweb-cg@w3.org
>From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
>Subject: Fwd: Report on WS-Description & WS-Architecture Working 
>Groups  F2F presentation
>X-Archived-At: 
>http://www.w3.org/mid/p05200f12baefab83d987@%5B195.111.108.111%5D
>Resent-From: w3c-semweb-cg@w3.org
>X-Mailing-List: <w3c-semweb-cg@w3.org> archive/latest/1078
>X-Loop: w3c-semweb-cg@w3.org
>Sender: w3c-semweb-cg-request@w3.org
>Resent-Sender: w3c-semweb-cg-request@w3.org
>List-Id: <w3c-semweb-cg.w3.org>
>List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:w3c-semweb-cg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
>
>
>Bijan's report on his presentation to WSD and WSA WGs - forwarded w/his 
>permission
>
>
>
>>Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 06:27:30 -0400
>>From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
>>Subject: Report on WS-Description & WS-Architecture Working Groups F2F 
>>presentation
>>To: hendler@cs.umd.edu
>>Reply-To: bparsia@isr.umd.edu
>>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.6 required=5.0
>>         tests=BAYES_01
>>         version=2.53
>>X-Spam-Level:
>>X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
>>
>>Jim,
>>
>>Here is a brief write up of my visit to the WS-D and WS-A
>>working groups F2F in Rennes, France at which I presented to a
>>joint session about the Semantic Web, specifically with an eye
>>to explaining a bit about OWL and discussing the WS-D
>>requirement for a "mapping to the Semantic Web".
>>
>>Overall, and in detail, the presentation was an Unqualified
>>Success. I liked them, they liked me, they were happy to see
>>running code using *existing* mappings (a.k.a., DAML-S), and I
>>think everyone felt that they had a *much* better grip of the
>>landscape.
>>
>>Slides for my talk are at:
>>         http://www.mindswap.org/~bparsia/talks/may2003-wsd-wg/
>>
>>I discussed possible deliverables:
>>         http://www.mindswap.org/~bparsia/talks/slide11-3.html
>>which include a simple mapping of the assertions in a WSDL
>>file, a WSDL ontology, and WSDL extensions to include Semantic
>>Web data. The groups were amenable to all of these *in
>>principle* (indeed, WS-A co-chair Dave Hollander suggests that
>>EVERY WS wg should provide an ontology), but, as Jonathan
>>Marsh, chair of WS-D, put it, they just didn't have the
>>expertise, nor did they have the resources to develop the
>>expertise in-group. He would very much like to import that
>>expertise, e.g., by having me or someone (or someones) similar.
>>
>>Arthur Ryman of IBM expressed a lot of interest in using OWL
>>to provide extended constraints on WSDL files (beyond those of
>>XML Schema).
>>
>>Hugo Haas, team contact of the groups, expressed a very strong
>>interest in SHOP2. I think packaging up Dan and Evren's work
>>so as to give people a practical fully automated composition
>>tool would be a big, big win at this stage.
>>
>>Someone phoning in (I'll have to look up who, a UDDI person,
>>anyway) was very interested in my slide on discovery:
>>         http://www.mindswap.org/~bparsia/talks/may2003-wsd-wg/slide7-3.html
>>And was very strong on having someone do for the UDDI group
>>what I was doing for the WS-D/-A groups. Outreach is needed.
>>Mike Champion was very interested in my taxonomy/ontology
>>distinction (basically, that a taxonomy is an explicitly
>>classified concept system where every concept that is subsumed
>>somewhere has at least one explicit subClassOf link, where as
>>an ontology allows, rather encourages, automatic
>>classification, i.e., describing concepts in such a way that
>>implicit subsumption relations may be inferred).
>>
>>Oh! I got to mention the flame-broiling concept from the NCI
>>Ontology. A compelling example, I think. Plus, Frank should
>>like it :)
>>
>>I will say, and I found this very interesting, that both
>>groups are *very* interested in having good formal languages
>>and tools for conceptual modeling. But, at the moment, OWL is
>>a *very* hard sell as compare to UML (in particular). UML has
>>the tools, books, pretty pictures, mindshare, considerable
>>widespread expertise, etc. Everyone was willing to use
>>"something better" where the advantages were clear, but not if
>>it took them a huge amount of time to get up to speed (both
>>groups are already VERY concerned with their progress and
>>schedule). I think this is why coordination with DAML-S and
>>SWSI can be a big win: Not only is there expertise there, but
>>there's something of an actual customer base.
>>
>>In any case, Marsh was very clear that he, and I think his
>>group, were quite willing and interested to go beyond the
>>merest meeting of the requirement so long as developing the
>>mapping and ontology was driven, or at least guided, by
>>someone with the requisite energy and knowledge.
>>
>>See:
>>         http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003May/0052.html
>>
>>down at the bottom, for the record of this discussion.
>>
>>Hollander gave me a standing invite to sit in on WS-A
>>meetings. Champion was also very enthusiastic. If I were to
>>join the WS-D group, it might make sense to have me be a
>>conduit between WS-A and SWSI-A as well, as I would be at or
>>near all those F2Fs (shudder). Katiya doesn't seem to be
>>participating as actively anymore. Just make sure that I'm
>>don't have to really fully participate in two groups :)
>>
>>Hollander and I discussed stuff after the meeting, including
>>some possible future collaboration with the MIND lab. He was,
>>as was everyone and as usual, very impressed with the Composer.
>>
>>A tactical note: It seems very very very important to minimize
>>mention of Semantic Web Magic. These folks have a very strong
>>sense that the Semantic Web Fruitcake (or Koolaid) Factor is
>>very high. The strongest argument, I think, has been that the
>>WS community has been reinventing "semantics". I.e., they have
>>a need, they can do the NIH thing or they can overlap and save
>>themselves a lot of work, tap into a wide body of existing
>>data, ontologies, and expertise, and make a sister community
>>happy. Huzzahs all around.
>>
>>Many of these folks have lots and lots of data integration
>>experience. Lots.
>>
>>Given the interest in business (etc.) policy expression, I
>>suggest that some movement on rules would be a good idea. They
>>are a clear major dependancy on a Rules working group. They
>>also seem to fit more squarely in the camp RuleML or Common
>>Rules is targeting.
>>
>>Ok, perhaps not so brief, but that seems to be the highlights.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Bijan.
>--
>Professor James Hendler                           hendler@cs.umd.edu
>Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies     301-405-2696
>Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.    301-405-6707 (Fax)
>Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742          240-731-3822 (Cell)
>http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2003 08:39:05 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:32 EDT