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

Re: Web Services Architecture Document

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:45:30 -0500
Message-Id: <B703A9A6-5343-11D8-8240-0003939E0B44@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: "Katia Sycara" <katia@cs.cmu.edu>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
To: "Stephane Fellah" <fellah@pcigeomatics.com>

On Jan 30, 2004, at 11:24 AM, Stephane Fellah wrote:

>
> This is good news. Can I assume safely that this ontology will be
> considered as the upper-ontology for the W3C web services architecture,

No. At least, not in my opinion. But I have funny views about 
upper-ontologeis.

And, of course, it depends on what your safely requirements are.

The Architecture document won't be a recommendation, so won't have any 
normative status at all.

> on which other ontologies such as OWL-S should hook in ?

Should in what sense? It's not entirely clear that the current OWL-S 
can entirely hookin.

There is some desire by certain members of certain W3C working groups 
members to build on the architecture work. But there is no 
institutional promises supporting that.

There are extra-W3C groups (OWL-S coalition, SWSI) who have interest in 
the WSA work, but they have no institutional constraints either and 
have some interests that are counter to using WSA as an upper arch.

Finally, the arch work isn't, by the members own admission, finsihed. 
And it's not been widely scrutinized (yet).

So, it's a good thing, but I don't think you can make any assumptions 
about what will be done with it.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.
Received on Friday, 30 January 2004 11:46:08 GMT

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