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

RE: D-AG0009; Semantic Web & Web architecture

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 10:07:46 -0700
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E402C705C2@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) 
> [mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 11:41 AM
> To: 'Damodaran, Suresh'; 'Austin, Daniel'; 'michael.mahan@nokia.com'
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: D-AG0009; Semantic Web & Web architecture
> 
> 
> I am not aware of any fundamental inconsistency between the 
> goal of using  the web for business purposes and those of 
> the semantic web.  

I was not on the teleconference last week, but I think this issue might
be that some of us want to be convinced that explicitly requiring 
that the web services architecture be consistent with the "semantic web"
meets a concrete need of the member companies and our customers.  

The semantic web initiative may, over the course of this decade, 
greatly facilitate the "understanding" of diverse business messages by
software without human intervention.  That is obviously very relevant to
the definition of "web services" that we came up with.  I would VERY
STRONGLY
urge the semantic web people to take a requirement (the next time they 
are chartered, if they don't have it already!) to support many use cases
from the web services world.  I think we clearly need a considerable degree
of liason with the semantic web people to make sure that the web services 
architecture reflects the concrete progress that the SW can demonstrate in
meeting
web services use cases.  I'm a bit leery, however, of any requirement that
is
more specific than that we be "aligned" with the SW in some way.  This is an
independent activity; we should be "aligned" to benefit from the SW's
successes, but
not held back by its failures.
Received on Monday, 25 March 2002 12:08:21 GMT

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