W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > July 2002

RE: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public discussion

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 16:07:22 -0400
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E4038008A3@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: "'www-ws-arch@w3.org'" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fgm@fla.fujitsu.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 12:18 PM
> To: Champion, Mike
> Cc: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org'
> Subject: Re: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public discussion
> The bottom line: avoid phrasing the question in terms of equivalence, 
> instead phrase the question in terms of `have I heard of this name 
> before'?

My bottom line is 

> >> concepts like semantic equivalence that
> >> could create expectations well beyond what Web Services can actually 
> >> deliver today.

I'm eagerly looking forward to seeing and using technologies using "a graph
of concepts that a web service provider  publishes to describe his or her
service. A client applies a matching test to that graph -- which might
include getting references from other graphs -- to see if the graph is
congruent with his desired service."  Maybe I'm not looking in the right
places, but I just don't see that in the real world of web services today.  

Thus, it is IMHO inappropriate to *require* the WSA to accomodate ideas
which *may* prove powerful, until their practical value has been
demonstrated.  The W3C -- to bang one of my favorite drums, sorry -- is most
successful when working to standardize practice, and least successful when
trying to do computer science by committee.  I would be very happy to
incorporate field-tested semantic inference technology into the WSA, but I
can't agree to require it based on the current state of the art.
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2002 16:07:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:57 UTC