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

Does it preclude the existing technologies such as SOAP, WSDL etc?. 

Regards,
Sateesh
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 12:20 PM
To: wsawg public
Subject: Re: D-AC009.2 discussion points and proposal(s)


Okay, then how 'bout this:

<proposal from="chair" mode="revised">
"New Web Services WGs chartered to develop new technologies
identified in the architecture SHOULD provide a normative
mapping to RDF/XML."
</proposal>

Cheers,

Chris


Champion, Mike wrote:

> I strongly agree with the position labelled IBM -- this is an excessive
> burden on the WG unless some SW experts/advocates volunteer  to do the
work.
> As such, it should not be a strong requirement on the WG as a whole.  I
have
> no problem with this as a statement of a desireable goal.
> 
> I also agree with CVX -- at this stage, the WS requirements should be
> driving the SW requirements rather than vice versa.   
> 
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com]
>>Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 1:33 PM
>>To: wsawg public
>>Subject: D-AC009.2 discussion points and proposal(s)
>>
>>
>>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 18:00:06 UTC