Options we have with respect to the draft charters (i.e., RE: [fwd] Draft charters for work on Semantics for WS)

We need to decide how we want to focus our energy--
 
(a) positively to come up with recommendations that vendors and W3 
community would likely embrace
 
or
 
(b) in academic debates related to  who put up something in a draft 
document posted on the web first, who discussed the idea in a stable 
version first, who did in an invited talk first, or who did so in a 
refereed publication first.
 
My suggestion is to deal with (b) separately, preferably one-on-one first,
as side meetings at conferences/workshops next, and as the last resort, 
in writing review to submitted papers.
 
Then I can point out that in our refereed ICWS03 paper  Adding Semantics 
to Web Services Standards (2003) 
<http://lsdis.cs.uga.edu/lib/download/SVSM03-ICWS-final.pdf>,
we had cited v0.6 draft of OWL-S, giving it due credit, while discussing 
clear distinction wrt our WSDL-S
approach. And I can share a long list of examples of ignoring of METEOR-S's
contribution to the area, such as proposing functional 
semantics/ontology (with
RosettaNet use case and ontology) or non-functional semantics and
QoS ontology.

I suggest we get back to (a), and whatever the outcome, one of us
(I can volunteer my students) make an annotated bibliography of all work on
either or both of the charters Carine has outlined.  An example of use 
of positive energy
is in an on-going WSMO-WSDL-S collaboration that would show how more 
comprehensive models
such as WSMO can use WSDL-S as grounding (see 
http://www.wsmo.org/TR/d30/v0.1/
or 
http://lsdis.cs.uga.edu/projects/meteor-s/wsdl-s/WSMX-Meteor-S-interoperability-final.pdf).
While talking about languages/representations/features, let us not 
forget the
prototyping/tooling/use cases (has that been done for a given idea?)
and all those things that make anything real to potential
technology adopters.

In my analysis, the key driving factor for the two proposed charters is 
to limit their scope
such that tangible results can be reached in a reasonable period.  Hence 
the identification of WSDL-S
as a starting point may be seen in this context, rather than an attempt
to attribute to WSDL-S all the scientific/research credit for various 
SWS features and capabilities,
many of which are shared with (and some built upon) other illustrious 
submissions.

Regards,
Amit Sheth  (speaking personally, rather than for the WSDL-S team)
http://lsdis.cs.uga.edu/~amit