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

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

From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 07:16:43 -0400
Message-ID: <3CEB7E1B.5030306@sun.com>
To: Katia Sycara <katia@cs.cmu.edu>
CC: "'wsawg public'" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
right, let's try this on for size:

<proposal>
"New Web Services technologies, developed by W3C Web
Services WGs, SHOULD be capable of being mapped to RDF/XML."
</proposal>

Cheers,

Chris


Katia Sycara wrote:

> Chris,
>  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?
> 
>  --Katia
> 
> -----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:
> 
> <proposal>
> "New Web Services WGs chartered to develop new technologies
> identified in the architecture SHOULD be capable of being
> mapped to RDF/XML."
> </proposal>
> 
> 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>
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
> David Orchard wrote:
> 
> 
>>BEA is aghast that the web services activity is even pondering requiring
>>
> the
> 
>>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
>>
> the
> 
>>Semantic Web Activity.  The Director SPECIFICALLY asked this question to
>>
> the
> 
>>AC list and got an incredibly strong negative response from the community
>>
> on
> 
>>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
>>
> flagrant
> 
>>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
>>>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 Wednesday, 22 May 2002 07:19:40 GMT

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