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

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

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 08:47:20 -0400
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E40339A8DB@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org


>
> Also, despite all those comments, WSD was still chartered to provide
> an RDF mapping.  I personally believe that we should treat this as
> jurisprudence, and my proposed wording "SHOULD provide a mapping"
> reflects that.

We're talking about WSA here, not WSD.  IMHO, one can make a good case for a
WSDL-like language based on RDF without insisting that *all* components of
the web services architecture be mapped to RDF.  For example, it's not
obvious to me how an RDF mapping would address the reliability issue in a
useful way. So, WSD chartered itself to produce an RDF mapping, that's their
decision and we'll all learn from the success or failure of that effort.  I
see no reason at this point to insist that other WGs spawned by the WSA need
this constraint.

As I understand it, our charter says that the WSA be "aligned with" the SW
activity and we're discussing what that means in terms of concrete
requirements.  I think that means that we work with one another, learn from
one another, and be ready to jump on any SW breakthroughs that will help
clarify the WS Architecture.   "SHOULD be capable of being mapped to RDF"
gives the WSA an incentive to learn from the SW's successes; "SHOULD provide
a mapping" commits us (albeit weakly) to do work irrespective of the SW's
actual success or failure.
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 08:48:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:00 GMT