RE: Semantics

+1 to what Dave said.  The "state of the art" is clearly private agreement.
We would like to go beyond that, and should encourage work in this area, but
it can't be a MUST requirement.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Hollander [mailto:dmh@contivo.com]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 11:34 AM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Semantics


As much as I would like to strive for the goal, I think it is unrealistic
and will prevent the use of
web services for existing services that do rely upon private agreement.
 
In summary, I would find this easier to support if:
    1) it described or defered to another project the foundation semantics
used to achive this goal?
    2) it was reworded to indicate that a ws may be characterized -- instead
of an obligation to characterize.
 
Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Damodaran, Suresh [mailto:Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com]
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 5:16 PM
To: 'Francis McCabe'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Semantics


-----Original Message-----
From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fgm@fla.fujitsu.com]
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 5:23 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Semantics



D-AC026.2.3 It must be possible to characterize a service using purely
publicly observable semantics. I.e., the semantic description of a web
service should not rely on private agreements or on unobservable
characteristics of services and agents. 

<sd> Why? </sd>
 
Thanks,

-Suresh 
Sterling Commerce