RE: Semantics for Web Services Characterization

I think W3C and this WG can consider more complex situations in developing
semantic Web services rather than such simple business models. There is a
long term effect once we select a way to do things (such as RDF/OWL) while
we need more general approach for semantic Web services rather than tightly
coupled with WSDL since W3C defined Web service as "a software system
designed to support interoperable machine-to-machine interaction over a
network". 

-----Original Message-----
From: David Martin
To: Carine Bournez
Cc: Battle, Steven Andrew; public-sws-ig@w3.org; www-ws@w3.org
Sent: 11/22/05 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: Semantics for Web Services Characterization


Hi Carine -

a couple comments below ..

Carine Bournez wrote:
> 
> Steve,
> 
> Let me try to clarify the intent (it seems to me that there is a deep 
> misunderstanding).
> 
> 
>>Given this rich context to draw on, it surprises me that the
>>'characterization' charter seems to limit itself almost exclusively to
>>"solutions like WSDL-S", which I read as invocation and a bit of
>>discovery. This really isn't going to attract many relevant scenarios.
> 
> 
> The charter does not limit itslef to solutions like WSDL-S. The idea
is
> to think about building a technology stack, starting from WSDL, adding
> some semantic extensions (generic enough to be able to build on top
> of these) and continue on those footprints. The goal is precisely to
> define the scope of what could be done (invocation? discovery? more?).
> The proposal is to find out and demonstrate what can't be achieved
> with the current Web Services technologies.
> 
> 
>>Given that the mission is to analyse "real-scale applications", why
>>eliminate composition, mediation, validation from the outset? For
>>example, there's great opportunity here to work with the SWS
'mediation'
>>Challenge <http://deri.stanford.edu/challenge/2006/> organised by DERI
>>Stanford.
> 
> 
> Again, the charter does not exclude any of those, because those 
> particular "key points" should be determined by the group.
> 
> 
>>"The mission of the Semantics for Web Services Characterization Group
is
>>to continue in the footprints of solutions like WSDL-S and study the
>>field of applications and identify key points that are not immediately
>>solved using Web services technologies."
>>
>>could be changed to something like:
>>
>>"The mission of the Semantics for Web Services Characterization Group
is
>>to study the field of applications addressed by technologies such as
>>WSDL-S, OWL-S, WSMO and SWSF and to identify key points that are not
>>immediately solved using Web services technologies."
> 
> 
> Restricting the scope to the fields that are already addressed by 
> existing technologies is IMHO a bad idea for characterization. 

Note that Steve's proposed language does not say anything about 
"restricting" the scope to ... existing technologies.  It uses the 
phrase "such as", which has a similar meaning to "for example".

> The goal
> is to derive the functionalities from the use cases, not from the
> technologies developed in the area.

Yes, that's a very strong point.  But then why mention WSDL-S?  If the 
primary motivation is to avoid any tendency to derive use cases or 
functionalities from particular technologies, then it would make sense 
not to mention any particular technologies.  A phrase like "follow in 
the footprints of technology X" is extremely vague and could very easily

be misinterpreted as guidance towards identifying functionalities that 
could build on technology X, which, as you say, is to be avoided.  I 
would recommend simplifying as follows:

"The mission of the Semantics for Web Services Characterization Group is
to study the field of applications and identify key points that are not 
immediately solved using Web services technologies."

Regards,
David

Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2005 15:20:55 UTC