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

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

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 14:06:31 -0700
To: "'Christopher Ferris'" <chris.ferris@sun.com>, "'Katia Sycara'" <katia@cs.cmu.edu>
Cc: "'wsawg public'" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005c01c201d7$f57c5dc0$b90a1342@beasys.com>
That's much better.  That means the working groups don't have to do any work
until somebody else proves them wrong.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Christopher Ferris
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 4:17 AM
> To: Katia Sycara
> Cc: 'wsawg public'
> Subject: Re: D-AC009.2 discussion points and proposal(s)
>
>
> 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 17:34:49 GMT

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