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 10:15:35 -0700
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: "'David Booth'" <dbooth@w3.org>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00ca01c2027d$74a3e1e0$b90a1342@beasys.com>

> I would rather it not be reopened too.  But I think that the recent
> flurry of acknowledgements that Web services have little to
> do with the
> Web, certainly puts it in a new light.
>

What flurry of acknowledgements?  There has been no such thing.

If the GETF task force is to be believed, in 2 weeks or so, SOAP 1.2 will be
a better citizen in the web.  2 weeks of effort is hardly sufficient to
justify such a grandiose claim as "web services have little to do with the
web".

And further, SOAP 1.2 becoming a better citizen hardly means that semantic
web/web service coupling is new light or new information.

> 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.
>

There is no jurisprudence there.  It is not surprising that a "Web Service
Description", where a web service is a web resource, should have a "resource
description" in RDF.  But that doesn't apply to the overall WSA.

But I think I saw you saying you could live with wording of "expressible
in", so I think we can move on.  I mostly wanted to dispute the 2 assertions
you made wrt web services/web and jurisprudence.

Cheers,
Dave
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 13:19:28 GMT

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