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

RE: Proposed Choreograph Working Group Charter

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:09:37 -0600
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E403F51922@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fgm@fla.fujitsu.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 4:48 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed Choreograph Working Group Charter
> I cannot help thinking that if the group seriously considers 
> being able 
> to do business without semantics a positive rather than negative 
> feature of today then there is some education necessary. 

I for one was talking about the realities of defining *standards*
for semantics given today's technology.  Of course some 
shared understanding of "semantics" is necessary, it's just that
IMHO we're not able to cut humans out of that loop now, or anytime soon.

If semantic technology that is ready for standardization (as opposed to 
ready for demonstration, or ready for use in pilot projects) is
out there, by all means educate us! 

My point is more to keep us focused on what is realistically achieveable
in the short run, as opposed to what is desireable and optimistically
achieveable in the long run.  Effective standards are typically built
on "boring" technology that everyone understands rather than "cool"
technology at the cutting edge.  

James Gosling seems to have developed the definitive mathematical theory
of this :-) http://java.sun.com/people/jag/StandardsPhases/index.html
"for a standard to be usefully formed, the technology needs to be
technological interest needs to be waning. But if political interest 
in a standard becomes too large, the various parties have too 
much at stake in their own vested interest to be flexible enough 
to accommodate the unified view that a standard requires."

Web services choreography just *might* be in Gosling's "window
of standardization."  Web services business semantics are probably not.
Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 17:10:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:59 UTC