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

Re: D-AG0009; Semantic Web & Web architecture

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 01:04:22 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200203080604.BAA24640@markbaker.ca>
To: Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com (Champion, Mike)
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Mike,

> Yeah, but the point of analyzing goals is to come up with a requirements
> document, no?

I wouldn't call it the point, just a bonus.  The point of analyzing goals
is to define the target, IMO.

>   I think we need to be somewhat more specific.  It could
> require a dicussion much like the "do we require XML" discussion, e.g. "to
> what extent should definition specification(s) employ RDF".   It seems to me
> that there is a continuum here, from "the semantic web technologies MUST be
> employed in the web services architecture wherever possible" to "the
> semantic web initiative MAY have something to say about web services
> architecture and if so we will pay attention."

Those are more statements of requirements, no?  I mean, they provide
constraints that shape our work.

Maybe I'm confused about the objectives of this exercise.  I thought it
was to shore up the goals before we attack the requirements.  Clearly
some goals will become requirements, but I'm not sure that this WG wants
to have "must integrate with Web architecture" as a requirement, because
practically every Web service I've seen does not integrate with Web
architecture.

> Also, as unpleasant as this may be, there is a certain "meme" propagated by
> the press to the effect that the SW stuff has distracted the W3C from web
> services.  We ARE going to have to come up with a story on this ...

I've got a story for you. 8-)

> either
> it is critical, desireable, potentially interesting, or something.  If we
> put out a Requirements doc that simply says "aligned with the semantic web"
> then the first thing a reasonably competent reporter would ask is "what does
> that MEAN?"
>
> > I also wonder whether D-AG0011 is a necessary separate goal, as it
> > appears to be a subset of this goal.
> 
> I agree it should be a separate goal.  And another long discussion, or at
> least we have to pick up on the threads started on the dist-app and TAG
> lists.

To be clear, I was suggesting that it be removed because it appears to
be a subset of D-AG0009.  Why do you think it should be separate?

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Friday, 8 March 2002 01:00:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:56 GMT