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: Thu, 23 May 2002 04:39:46 -0700
To: "'David Booth'" <dbooth@w3.org>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <009501c2024f$279d08f0$b90a1342@beasys.com>
Not all companies put their comments on the public list.  The votes were
announced by the director.

Are you attempting to re-open the issue?  I don't really see what new
information would cause the membership to re-open this.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 3:18 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Cc: David Orchard
> Subject: RE: D-AC009.2 discussion points and proposal(s)
> At 03:33 PM 5/21/2002 -0700, "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com> wrote:
> >The W3C membership CLEARLY indicated that web services IS
> decoupled from the
> >Semantic Web Activity.  . . . .
> Although more people spoke out in favor of decoupling Web
> Services work
> from the Semantic Web activity than those who spoke out against such
> decoupling, I think it's only fair to point out that there
> were strong
> voices on both sides of the question.
> A search of the w3c-ac-forum email list

> http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Team/advanced_search?keywords=%2
> 2semantic+web%22&hdr-1-name=subject&hdr-1-query=%22web+service
> s%22&hdr-2-name=from&hdr-2-query=&hdr-3-name=message-id&hdr-3-
> query=&resultsperpage=100&sortby=date&index-grp=Team%2FFULL+Me
> mber%2FFULL+Public%2FFULL&index-type=t&type-index=w3c-ac-forum
> &index=ac-discussion
> ) yielded 20 hits, of which 18 (excerpted below) seem to
> pertain to this
> issue.  Of those, it looks to me like about 10 of those who
> wrote were in
> favor of decoupling and about 5 were against decoupling.
> Here are excerpts of the search results.  I have tried to
> ensure that these
> excerpts accurately characterize the sense of the authors' complete
> messages (relative to this issue), but please refer to the original
> messages for the full context if there is a question.
>                        ---
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2001OctDec/01
> 99.html :
> Tim Clark, Millennium Pharmaceuticals:
> "Relationship with Semantic Web activities is potentially
> very important,
> especially for Life Sciences applications where ontologies play a
> significant role. The charter should include a statement
> requiring active
> liaison between the Web Services activity and both W3C WebOnt
> and DAML
> Services (DAML-S) groups."
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2001OctDec/01
> 98.html :
> Ora Lassila, Nokia:
> "Relationship with Semantic Web activities is important; the current
> proposal mentions this only in passing and does not
> sufficiently emphasize
> the importance. The charter should include a statement about liaison
> between the Web Services activity and both W3C WebOnt and
> DAML Services
> (DAML-S) groups."
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2001OctDec/01
> 86.html :
> David Orchard, BEA:
> "Web Services should be loosely coupled to Semantic Web and
> RDF. Semantic
> Web suggested changes to Web Services should be evaluated by
> the working
> groups and architecture groups, but not mandated in any charters."
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2001OctDec/00
> 76.html :
> Don Deutsch, Oracle:
> 'we do NOT favor mandating the use of the Resource
> Description Framework
> (RDF) for "any semantically significant information" at this time.'
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2001OctDec/00
> 71.html :
> Eric Newcomer, Iona:
> "The semantic web represents a wonderful vision, but Web
> services represent
> the next significant practical use of the web. We should
> ensure the success
> of Web services first, and the top priority. The semantic web
> effort stands
> to be more meaningful in the context of a Web services
> enabled Web since
> the Web will be much more useful to business and society than
> it is today.
> . . . .   Can anyone really imagine trying to reinvent [SOAP,
> WSDL, and
> other associated technologies] using RDF? Certainly RDF has
> its place, and
> would have equal place in the Web services enabled world."
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2001OctDec/00
> 70.html :
> Tex Texin, Progress Software:
> "RDF and Web Services should not be coupled at this time."
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2001OctDec/00
> 60.html :
> Joe Meadows, Boeing:
> "We . . . believe that the Semantic Web activity is very
> important, and
> that ignoring the ability to leverage semantically
> significant information
> would be a major drawback to any implementation, thus we
> strongly encourage
> that the issue not be sidestepped, but rather, be addressed head on."
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2001OctDec/00
> 27.html :
> Johan Hjelm, Ericsson:
> "web services come first and then, later, semantic web
> technologies are
> applied to the web services registries and the like.  . . .
> Keeping the
> architecture as clean as possible, keeping dependencies as
> few and small as
> possible, should be a goal in itself. And if dependencies
> exist, they need
> to be documented early and it should be possible to provide a modular
> implementation - preferrably one where the dependencies can
> be removed (so
> that you can implement web services without RDF, but if you
> do it with RDF,
> it becomes much better than otherwise... carrot instead of
> stick. That
> would be interesting to see)."
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2001OctDec/00
> 02.html :
> Frederick Hirsch, Zolera Systems:
> "Dynamically assembling comprehensive web services to meet specified
> criteria such as quality of service or cost will require
> processing as
> exemplified in the semantic web vision. Such XML services
> will require meta
> information and decisions. For this reason we believe the W3C
> activity
> should focus on the XML Service Description working group
> proposal and
> attempt to create a new, simple yet elegant solution that fits the
> architecture of the semantic web. . . .  Despite the benefits
> of WSDL,
> considering a different semantic web based approach, and
> consolidating
> layers, might produce a simpler, generic solution.  Rather
> than rushing to
> approve an industry proposal, we believe the W3C should focus
> on producing
> a simple, powerful and long term solution."
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2001JulSep/02
> 14.html :
> Alexander Falk, Altova:
> "Web Services . . . are a top priority for standardization. . . . The
> Semantic Web, RDF, and ontologies . . . [are] more a
> "research" matter,
> whereas things like Web Services are a clear "development"
> matter and more
> important in the short-term. . . .  [For] the foregoing reasons, Web
> Services and RDF or the Semantic Web should be decoupled."
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2001JulSep/02
> 11.html :
> David Orchard, BEA:
> "BEA Systems strongly opposes the coupling of RDF and the
> Semantic web to
> the Web Services standardization efforts.  RDF and Semantic
> Web activities
> may eventually provide very valuable solutions to problems facing
> developers and organizations in the future. But that does not
> appear to be
> the case today."
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2001JulSep/01
> 93.html :
> Mark Wood, Eastman Kodak:
> "The work of the Semantic Web activity is not yet mature nor widely
> accepted. Consequently, at this time we see no reason to
> mandate the use of
> RDF for Web Services, although that may be appropriate in the future."
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2001JulSep/01
86.html :
Michael Wilson Chair, CLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory:
"CLRC views the service descriptions as requiring graph beyond hierarchy
structure and therefore RDF would be more appropriate than XML Schema."

Oisin Hurley, Iona:
"While the Web Services and Semantic Web activities may both live quite
happily as isolated works, I think there is a potential great benefit in
studying and effecting their intersection. However I do not think that this
benefit will be immediately obvious or executable, so I would say that both
activities should come to a certain level of maturity before a initiative
is undertaken to find cross-applications."

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2001JulSep/0184.html :
Renato Iannella, IPR Systems:
"IPR Systems would strongly prefer to see any proposed Activity for a Web
services language to be based on XML Schema. XML Schema should be
considered by W3C as the core schema language for "common infrastructure".
(Unfortunately, RDF/RDF Schema poses too many unknowns into the equation.)"

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2001JulSep/0182.html :
Eve Maler, Sun:
"we're concerned about taking on small pieces of work without developing
them against a coherent vision. To this end, we believe the TAG should be
formed as quickly as possible and should immediately begin developing an
architectural vision with which the web services description work can later
align as necessary. The TAG would be the appropriate forum to consider
fully the potential relationship of the semantic web and web services."

Roger Cutler, Chevron:
"On the face of it, the WSDL activity seems much more attractive than the
RDF-specific proposal. For one thing, it has the backing of industry
heavyweights already and considerable de facto acceptance. If the W3C goes
in some other direction I think there is a definite risk of being ignored.
Moreover, if that happened WSDL would not get the needed "working over" in
terms of integration and validation, and possibly extension, that a W3C
working group would give it, so de facto acceptance might lead to flawed
implementation. Finally, it seems to me premature to make a commitment to
using RDF, the new kid on the block, for a high priority main-line function
like this."

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2001JulSep/0166.html :
Franz Fritz, SAP:
"We do not see the absolute necessity to align WSDL with RDF in the first

David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 07:47:56 UTC

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