- From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:28:49 -0500
- To: katia@cs.cmu.edu, cschmidt@microsoft.com, mjemio@disa.org, asirv@webmethods.com, michael.smith@eds.com, wong@docomolabs-usa.com, ora.lassila@nokia.com, pchen@lsu.edu, fgm@fla.fujitsu.com, em@w3.org, eikeon@eikeon.com, jos.deroo@agfa.com, jdale@fla.fujitsu.com, geoff.arnold@sun.com, carine@w3.org, dbooth@w3.org
- Cc: www-ws@w3.org, bgrosof@mit.edu
Introduction ------------ This email is a (short) summary of the discussions that happened on Wednesday 5 March 2003 during the Semantic Web Services (SWS) BOF[1] at the 2003 W3C Technical Plenary[2]. The goal of this BOF was to gather people interested in SWS, measure the interest and people's point of views, and discuss the possibility of creating a IG[3] in this area. Participants ------------ (apologies for any typo) Katia Sycara <katia@cs.cmu.edu> Carnegie Mellon University Cliff Schmidt <cschmidt@microsoft.com> Microsoft Marcel Jemio <mjemio@disa.org> Data Interchange Standards Association Asir S. Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com> webMethods, Inc. Michael K. Smith <michael.smith@eds.com> Electronic Data System (EDS) Candy Wong <wong@docomolabs-usa.com> DoCoMo USA Labs Ora Lassila <ora.lassila@nokia.com> Nokia Research Center Peter Chen <pchen@lsu.edu> Louisiana State University Frank McCabe <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com> Fujitsu Labs Eric Miller <em@w3.org> W3C Daniel Krech <eikeon@eikeon.com> Eikco Jos De Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com> AGFA Jonathan Dale <jdale@fla.fujitsu.com> Fujitsu Geoff Arnold <geoff.arnold@sun.com> Sun Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org> W3C Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org> W3C David Booth <dbooth@w3.org> W3C Minutes ------- (Note that they are succinct; feel free to add anything I missed that you consider important) Presentation of a draft charter capturing some current thoughts to the group: http://www.w3.org/2003/03/swsig-charter.html Why an IG instead of a WG? - Informal group. - What we are discussing and trying to produce is unclear yet. - We don't want to focus on technologies yet. - Light process. Why not a joint task force? Unclear between which groups. It is at the intersection of two Activities. -> ACTION: EricM to investigate about a jointly (SW Activity + WS Activity) IG Some people are expressing the desire to have face-to-face meetings; it is possible, but the charter needs to set expectations. Desire: have a goal for the IG. Things that people would like to see: - Test cases - Applications - Reviews of documents - FAQ (good candidate for a deliverable) The IG would maintain a home page. This IG could help produce the RDF mapping for WSDL 1.2, as well as the one for the output of the Web Services Choreography Working Group, as well as for other technologies, possibly outside W3C. This IG could be facilitating liaisons. Discussions about DAML-S, UDDI, CPP/CPA relationships; interest about having something written on this. A list of interested parties (by no means exhaustive, just a few names which floated around that I captured): - European community people (Katia knows them). - RuleML people. Reading materials: it would be good to have a list of related papers/documents/specs/etc; Katia has a few pointers. What next --------- The group agreed that the way forward was to have discussions on www-ws to work on scoping what people would like to see happening. This email is a first step in this direction. Action items ------------ ACTION: EricM to investigate about a jointly (SW Activity + WS Activity) IG 1. http://www.w3.org/2002/10/allgroupoverview/bof.html 2. http://www.w3.org/2002/10/allgroupoverview/ 3. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/groups.html#GroupsWG -- Hugo Haas - W3C mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:31:23 UTC