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

RE: remembering business data and taxonomy in description

From: Dave Hollander <dmh@contivo.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 13:17:00 -0700
Message-ID: <BD52C6379806D51188DD00508BEEC96C012A0989@mail.contivo.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org

I would suggest that if we do define a ws ontology, we should
*consider* RDF and/or OWL. These projects have significance to
us, being in the subject space and being W3C projects, but
I am not willing to assert that they *have* or *have not* 
addressed the correct problem with an solution that will be 
effective for web services. Nor, as co-chair, am
I willing to add debating this to the agenda prior to having 
the next draft out.

I do believe we will have to dig into ontologies and other
discovery meta-data soon, just not right now.

DaveH

-----Original Message-----
From: David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1:56 PM
To: Heather Kreger; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: remembering business data and taxonomy in description



Heather,

What you have described is formally called an "ontology": 
http://www.w3.org/2002/Talks/0813-semweb-dbooth/slide37-0.html

Clearly, if we do define a WS ontology for this purpose, then either RDF or 
W3C's emerging Web Ontology Language (known as "OWL") should be used.  This 
will: (a) ensure maximum flexibility and re-use potential; and (b) ensure 
that the ontologies will always be cleanly extensible, without breaking 
existing software and without having to wait for a standards group to 
sanctify new "facts" or "rules" that people want to use.

At 07:07 PM 10/11/2002 -0400, Heather Kreger wrote:
>After the stack was accepted as a starting point at the face to face,
>someone brought up the need for business description and taxonomy to
>be described and associated with a service in a way that does not prescribe
>that UDDI be used.
>
>We had initially thought that this may mean a new description layer for the
>stack. But
>this didn't feel right.
>
>However, I  have talked with some others about this
>and would like to propose that this type of information is actually
>'information about the
>service'.  We had put other 'information about the service' in the policy
>layer and I would
>like to propose that this is where business and taxonomies should go as
>well.
>I believe that policies will contain 'facts' and 'rules'. Business data and
>taxonomies
>are facts.
>Once we have a policy language (ws-policy), there will need to be groups
>who define
>standards 'sets' of policies to standardize keywords and concepts for
>things like 'timeout', etc.
>I think that some group will need to define a standard owning business
>policy and
>taxonomy policy.   I think that the UDDIEntry defined by the UDDI
>specification
>  provides an excellent set of starter data for such a group.
>
>Opinions?



-- 
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2002 16:22:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:09 GMT