W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws@w3.org > August 2003

RE: DAML-S input

From: Dickinson, Ian J <Ian.Dickinson@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 19:32:04 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F05F81634@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'David Martin'" <martin@ai.sri.com>, "Dickinson, Ian J" <Ian.Dickinson@hp.com>
Cc: "'www-ws@w3.org'" <www-ws@w3.org>

David -
Thanks for your comments. I'm very reassured that you're intending to open
up the technical discussions, and that there aren't any IP barriers to
adopting DAML-S technology.  We've just completed four days of very
interesting and productive discussion around DAML-S and semantic web
services in general, with participation from various HPL project teams and
Marta Sabou from Vrije University Amsterdam.  We hope to write up interim
results in the near future, although the August holiday season will have
some impact.

One other question, if you don't mind: what's the nature of the relationship
between the DAML-S consortium and the SWSI Language initiative?  I notice
that many, though not all, of the individuals concerned are on both bodies.
Is SWSI-L intended to subsume DAML-S, or are they in some way independent of
each other?

Thanks again,
Ian


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Martin [mailto:martin@ai.sri.com] 
> Sent: 01 August 2003 19:09
> To: Dickinson, Ian J
> Cc: 'www-ws@w3.org'
> Subject: Re: DAML-S input
> 
> 
> Hi Ian -
> 
> Dickinson, Ian J wrote:
> > We are in the midst of a fairly intense discussion on DAML-S (and 
> > OWL-S) in our lab.  This has raised a number of issues, 
> problems and 
> > questions about the languages and their use.  What is a good way to 
> > report these back to the DAML-S consortium?  Two obvious 
> extremes are 
> > to post one message here on www-ws per issue, to allow a suitably 
> > threaded discussion, or to post a paper discussing all of 
> the problems  
> > - which would be more compact but harder to respond to.  I'd 
> > appreciate some suggestions.
> 
>  From the perspective of the DAML-S Coalition, either of these 
> approaches would be fine, and welcome.  I guess it's whatever is most 
> convenient and productive in terms of your time constraints, etc.
> 
> > 
> > I know that some of the problems that we are encountering have been 
> > identified before - but I couldn't find an issue list or 
> issue tracker 
> > for DAML-S.  Does such a thing exist?
> 
> No.  There's an informal hand-crafted "rationale" page and a "status" 
> page on the DAML-S release site, which might be relevant, but 
> I'm afraid 
> they haven't been maintained very rigorously.
> 
> Also, of course, the www-ws archives are available.
> 
> > Finally, why are the consortium discussions private?  DAML-S is a 
> > public specification; other standards bodies (e.g. W3C) make the 
> > standards committees' deliberations open to the community to read 
> > (even if participation is restricted).  I notice the same lack of 
> > visibility is true for SWSI.
> 
> You are right that a good deal of our technical discussions (in both 
> groups) have taken place on private lists, and many of us are 
> concerned 
> about this.  It has been more the result of habit, tradition, and 
> convenience than anything else.  Actually we have discussed this 
> recently and we intend to increase our use of this list (www-ws) for 
> technical discussions.
> 
> Does it suggest that consortium members have or are going to
> > assert intellectual property claims on the resulting specification?
> 
> No.  Our use of private discussions has had nothing to do with IP 
> considerations.
> 
>   If so,
> > are the terms of these claims public?
> 
> There aren't any such claims.  Noone in either the DAML-S 
> Coalition or 
> in SWSI has ever expressed any interest in establishing any 
> IP claims in 
> connection with this work.
> 
> Anyway, thanks for your comments, and we welcome your input 
> on technical 
> issues.  Also, please bear with us - we really are beginning 
> to increase 
> our use of public e-mail discussions.
> 
> Regards,
> David Martin
Received on Friday, 1 August 2003 14:33:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:43 GMT