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

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

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 10:55:45 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020523104603.02699db0@localhost>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
At 04:39 AM 5/23/2002 -0700, David Orchard wrote:
>Are you attempting to re-open the issue?

Oh no, not at all!  It just seemed like your wording was rather strong, so 
I thought it was important to add a little more perspective.

> > -----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."
>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2001JulSep/0185.html
>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."
>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2001JulSep/0176.html
>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
>step."
>
>
>
>--
>David Booth
>W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
>Telephone: +1.617.253.1273

-- 
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 10:55:08 GMT

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