W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > January 2004

RE: WS Architectural Loose Ends / Outstanding issues

From: Katia Sycara <katia@cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:33:44 -0500
To: "'Champion, Mike'" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Cc: katia@cs.cmu.edu
Message-ID: <002e01c3d615$f2724c20$d1bd0280@scs.ad.cs.cmu.edu>

Mike, yes, this is the minimum that should be said.
 We may want to say more (e.g. perhaps bringing common ontologies into the
picture --I find it very probable that industries would want to define and
utilize such ontologies extensively).
 --katia

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Champion, Mike
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:09 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: WS Architectural Loose Ends / Outstanding issues


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Katia Sycara [mailto:katia@cs.cmu.edu] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:03 PM
> To: 'Champion, Mike'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Cc: katia@cs.cmu.edu
> Subject: RE: WS Architectural Loose Ends / Outstanding issues
> 

>  I would also like to see some additional issues relating to 
> semantics in there (but for now this is a half baked thought)


Good point!  Something along the lines of "SOMEHOW the service provider
[entity] and the service requester [entity] have to agree on the semantics
of the service being offered and the messages that request it, or they won't
interoperate even with SOAP, WSDL, etc.?"
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2004 13:33:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:24 GMT