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

Re: Report on Semantic Web Services BOF at W3C Technical Plenary

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:44:47 -0500
To: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Cc: 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, www-ws@w3.org, bgrosof@mit.edu
Message-ID: <20030305234447.GB32516@tux.w3.org>

[snip]

thanks for the notes, sorry I couldn't be there.

Here just briefly is my current preference, can probably discuss 
better f2f while many of us are in Boston:

 * establish a Web Services Interest Group as a relatively long-lived 
  entity, as community/developer and testing fora for WS folk, public and 
  large membership. The www-ws list would be a natural home. 
 * create a mailing list for a more focussed set of discussions surrounding
   the SW-meet-WS concerns that many from both RDF/SW and Services world 
   share. We can couch this as a 'task force' of the new WS IG, perhaps
   (if process allows) with a similar relationship to the RDF/SW Interest Group
  that I chair.

This would prototype a lightweight model for getting pre-REC-track things
done in a WS context without having to create multiple new Interest Groups. The 
general IG would provide an umbrella for topic-specific and relatively 
short term efforts, which would often be focussed on the scoping of 
new work items / working groups. We can create mailing lists more cheaply
than Interest Groups, although that doesn't excuse us from writing 
clear charters for mailing list usage!

FWIW this is anyway how I'm thinking to structure future RDF Interest Group
charterings, where we have to find a balance between specific topics
(eg. RDF calendar, RDF logic/rules, query, ...) and the expense and 
rigidity of chartering each of these as a separate Interest Group. All that is 
still up for discussion in the Semantic Web Coordination Group, but I
just wanted to scribble some thoughts here as I suspect a WS IG would 
run into similar concerns.

cheers,

Dan

(rdf interest group chair)
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2003 18:46:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:41 GMT