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

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

From: Katia Sycara <katia@cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 21:27:58 -0400
To: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>, "'wsawg public'" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Cc: katia@cs.cmu.edu
 how can a working group be mapped to XML/RDF?

Do you mean the WG documents should be capable of being mapped? The WG
results should be capable of being mapped? The description of the mechanisms
or specifications that the WG proposes should be capable of being mapped?


-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Christopher Ferris
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 8:05 PM
To: 'wsawg public'
Subject: Re: D-AC009.2 discussion points and proposal(s)

I'll take that as a strong 'D' against the currently drafted
text of this item and its successor proposals;)

How about the following:

"New Web Services WGs chartered to develop new technologies
identified in the architecture SHOULD be capable of being
mapped to RDF/XML."

This would remove the onus on a WG that may not have the
requisite expertise to perform the mapping from having to do so
and yet preserve the intent as captured in my recent proposal
for an amended D-AG009 which reads (as proposed):

 > <proposal from="chair">
 > "is not unnecessarily misaligned with the Semantic Web initiative"
 > </proposal>



David Orchard wrote:

> BEA is aghast that the web services activity is even pondering requiring
> provision of an RDF binding for XML technologies provided in the activity,
> and the resultant repercussions, like slowing up schedules..
> The W3C membership CLEARLY indicated that web services IS decoupled from
> Semantic Web Activity.  The Director SPECIFICALLY asked this question to
> AC list and got an incredibly strong negative response from the community
> the prospect of coupling the.  This issue has not been re-opened and we
> consider closed.
> There is NO mandate or rationale for the WSA to do this extra and
> unnecessary work.  This is scope and requirements creep of the most
> kind.
> We strongly oppose the wording of D-AR009.2 and vote against this, and
> support IBM and SAG's position.
> I apologize that I haven't been able to vote or speak on this topic until
> now, but I do get some time off every now and then ;-)
> Cheers,
> Dave Orchard
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
>>Behalf Of Champion, Mike
>>Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 11:00 AM
>>To: wsawg public
>>Subject: RE: D-AC009.2 discussion points and proposal(s)
>>I strongly agree with the position labelled IBM -- this is an
>>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)
>>>"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
>>>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
>>>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."
>>>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."
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2002 21:28:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:56 UTC