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

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

From: Eric Newcomer <eric.newcomer@iona.com>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 20:27:15 -0400
To: "Jeff Mischkinsky" <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>
Cc: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com>, "wsawg public" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FFEDIILGIAFELAMIJNMNKEPKDOAA.eric.newcomer@iona.com>
Yes, if someone can show us a compelling reason why the Semantic Web
activity is relevant to Web services then fine, it needs to be included and
accomodated.  But I don't think it's sufficient reason to say that we should
do so because many W3C people are enamored of the Semantic Web as
representative of the Web's future evolution.  Web services exist in
practice just fine without RDF or any aspect of the Semantic Web.  What we
need is conclusive evidence, and compelling reasons, for including RDF and
Semantic Web related technologies in Web services, not simply statements
that say we should do so because a lot of people are interested in the
Semantic Web.


-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Jeff Mischkinsky
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 12:29 AM
To: Mark Baker; David Booth
Cc: Champion, Mike; wsawg public
Subject: Re: D-AC009.2 discussion points and proposal(s)

At 06:23 PM 5/23/02, Mark Baker wrote:
>Well said.
>Web services folks can't have it both ways.  If it is part of the Web,
>then the Semantic Web must be accomodated.  If it isn't part of the
>Web, then the Semantic Web can be ignored - but in that case, what
>the heck are Web services doing in the W3C?

Be careful what you wish for, you might get it. :-)

>On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 04:47:33PM -0400, David Booth wrote:
> > (Just so that this message is not misunderstood, I am not objecting to
> > Chris's currently proposed wording for D-AC009.2, because I believe the
> > issue is more relevant to the resulting Working Groups and technologies
> > than the Architecture WG itself.  However I do want to point out one
> > for the benefit of future decisions . . .  )
> >
> > At 02:00 PM 5/21/2002 -0400, Champion, Mike wrote:
> > >the WS requirements should be
> > >driving the SW requirements rather than vice versa.
> >
> > I think it would be very dangerous to reverse the requirement like
> > that.  Web Services is important, but it isn't more important than the
> > as a whole.  The Semantic Web is just the incremental advancement of the
> > Web as a whole to be more useful.  (Specifically, to enable you to find,
> > share and combine information much more easily.)  It isn't a separate
> > application.
> >
> > Web Services needs to work with the Web -- not the other way
> around.  If we
> > were to turn the requirement around, then we would risk Web Services
> > fracturing or inhibiting the Web as a whole, which would be very bad
> indeed.
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Booth
> > W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> > Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
>Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
>Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
>http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com

Jeff Mischkinsky                    jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Consulting Member Technical Staff   +1(650)506-1975 (voice)
Oracle Corporation                  +1(650)506-7225 (fax)
400 Oracle Parkway, M/S 4OP960
Redwood Shores, CA 94065 USA
Received on Saturday, 25 May 2002 20:31:17 UTC

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