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

D-AC009.2 discussion points and proposal(s)

From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 13:32:31 -0400
Message-ID: <3CEA84AF.2010007@sun.com>
To: wsawg public <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
D-AR009.2
"All recommendations produced by the working group include a normative mapping between all XML 
technologies and RDF/XML."

CVX: I do not think that semantic web requirements should be driving the web services architecture 
group, but more the reverse.  I don't have any particular objection to supplying mappings to 
RDF/XML, but I don't like making it a requirement with the word "all" showing up repeatedly.  Maybe 
this is because I don't really know what is involved.  If it is really easy, let's just do it in 
order to be cooperative with a promising research effort (semantic web).  If it is time-consuming or 
restrictive in some way, however, I don't like this being a requirement.  If this goal is 
articulated at all I'd like to see some sort of escape clause, like "An effort will be made to 
provide mappings ..." or something.

SUNW: We agree with Hugo's suggested update to the wording: "New technologies
identified in the architecture must include a normative mapping between all
XML technologies and RDF/XML."  This was originally proposed in the thread
at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002May/0075.html


IBM: I think this is an undue burden on this working group and
requires a semantic web expert team in the group to volunteer
to do this work.  We have a significant amount of work and
agreement to achieve, a reoccuring concern (which we share)
about time to market for this architecture. I think adding
this requirement may cause significant burden and may
jeapardize ability to deliver in a short period of time.

At the very least, this should be done JOINTLY with resources
from the semantic web activity

W3C: See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002May/0075.html

Rereading this, maybe "recommendations" in this requirements is
talking about recommending now technologies and is actually OK. This
wording did generate some confusion about what it meant though.

Anymay, I agree with the requirement but the wording may need some
tweaking.

DCX: Are we really supposed to provide a mapping between *ALL XML technologies* in
general and RDF/XML?

PF: I prefer Hugo's rephrasing

<proposal from="Hugo">
"New technologies
identified in the architecture must include a normative mapping between all
XML technologies and RDF/XML."
</proposal>

Or, a slight twist that attempts to clarify scope:

<proposal from="chair">
"New Web Services WGs chartered to develop new technologies
identified in the architecture must be required to provide a normative
mapping to RDF/XML."
</proposal>
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2002 13:35:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:59 GMT