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

Re: DAML-S input

From: David Martin <martin@ai.sri.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2003 22:59:57 -0700
Message-ID: <3F2CA4DD.7070407@ai.sri.com>
To: "Dickinson, Ian J" <Ian.Dickinson@hp.com>
CC: "'www-ws@w3.org'" <www-ws@w3.org>



Dickinson, Ian J wrote:

>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?
>  
>
This is still somewhat of an open question.  In general, the idea is for 
SWSI-L to take DAML-S/OWL-S as a primary input, retaining and refining 
it, but also learning from its weaknesses.  That is, it will take (is 
taking) a fresh look at all the issues, and will build on OWL-S to the 
extent that seems advantageous, but will deviate from OWL-S in the areas 
where it seems important to do so.  In the meantime, the DAML-S 
Coalition has an incentive to continue to strengthen DAML-S/OWL-S as 
much as possible so that SWSI-L will retain more of it.

Regards,
David

>
>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 Sunday, 3 August 2003 02:00:17 GMT

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