Re: Options we have with respect to the draft charters (i.e., RE: [fwd] Draft charters for work on Semantics for WS) from jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk on 2005-11-19 (public-sws-ig@w3.org from November 2005)

From: <jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 21:30:15 +0000
To: David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>
Cc: "Amit Sheth @ LSDIS" <amit@cs.uga.edu>, public-sws-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <1132435815.437f996721555@mail.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Quoting David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>:

> In these messages, the primary point
> is simply this: since OWL-S proposed some of the same central approaches
> as are in WSDL-S, why should it not also be considered as an input?

But why should it be considered as an input?

What are the consequences of something being considered as an input?

BTW, why is it said that "the current WSDL standard operates at the
syntactic level"?  What is any more semantic about the things that
are labelled "semantic"?

Received on Saturday, 19 November 2005 21:30:29 UTC