RE: WS Architectural Loose Ends / Outstanding issues

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Katia Sycara [mailto:katia@cs.cmu.edu] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:34 PM
> To: 'Champion, Mike'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Cc: katia@cs.cmu.edu
> Subject: RE: WS Architectural Loose Ends / Outstanding issues
> 
> 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).

I find it very probable that they will spend years debating the "real"
meaning of common terms that everyone understands intuitively <duck>.

But seriously, yes, we ought to say something like that.  Feel free to draft
something.  I would appreciate a fairly wide net, that is, enumerating the
various alternatives for addressing the issue that semantics has to be
shared as well as message syntax to get real interoperability.  The options
I see off the top of my head would be:

- human readable documentation
- informal taxonomies/glossaries
- formal ontologies, either published by the provider or standardized within
an industry
- other taxonomy mapping approaches, a la Contivo?  [Hi Dave]
- ??? Other AI-ish things ???