Re: WSDL Debate Continued..

Jacek Kopecky wrote:

> Hi David,
> I think your two points were pretty much embodied in the recent WS
> Activity proposal in W3C - creating the SA-WSDL working group for point
> one and repurposing the SWS-IG for point two. Or do you think that
> something is missing? 8-)

Hi Jacek -

The SWS-IG has essentially nothing to do with what I am suggesting.  The 
SWS-IG "exists mainly as an email forum".  That's a quote from
As such, the SWS-IG is a very useful thing, but I don't see how you 
could possibly conclude that it addresses my point 2 (below).

What I am suggesting in point 2 is a much more proactive step that W3C 
could take.  That is, W3C could charter a working group to standardize 
how to specify, in a SemWeb-based manner, the low-hanging fruit that's 
at the intersection of most of the SWS proposals.  If this were done, it 
would provide a model for the semantic content referred to by the 
annotations produced by the sa-ws group (if it happens).  My claim is 
that having such a model would create a great deal more value for the WS 
community, because it will provide a standard for the semantic 
*content*, not just for the hooks.  (This is a concern that has been 
mentioned by others recently on this list.)

The Semantics for Web Services Characterization Group:,
which is currently on the back burner, could be viewed as an 
intermediate step towards the WG that I am suggesting.  (However, I'm 
not sure that it's really needed as a prerequisite to what I am suggesting.)

- David

> It's good to see a standards body do what people actually want. 8-)
> Jacek
> On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 16:42 -0800, David Martin wrote:
>>Bijan Parsia wrote:
>>>Small point: There is no WSDL debate in any meaningful sense. We've been 
>>>trolled (as Drew's post makes evident). Sorry for making it seem otherwise.
>>>Frankly, just the nature of the W3C makes it nigh impossible to 
>>>seriously depart from WSDL without an overwhelming rationale obviously 
>>>convincing to all. I'm hard pressed to imagine what that could even been.
>>>Given that *three* recent WS submissions (transfer, eventing, and 
>>>enumeration) all build/rely on WSDL (and Addressing, which is connected 
>>>to WSDL), suggests that, at least at the moment, enhancing WSDL is the 
>>>way to enrich WS descriptions. So that's how we'll go.
>>>(Where are the SWS-* specs? Let's start with preconditions and 
>>> personal favorite. Isn't that hard! Or non-functional 
>>>properties. Dublin core anyone? Again easy. We don't need a working 
>>>group to make a proposal! Anyone interested? (Also, don't focus on the 
>>>RDF mapping...focus on the normal WSDL (*provide* an extended mapping, 
>>>(This is one reason I don't think WSDL-S gets us much. We don't need 
>>>*hooks* we need substantive content. WSDL is hooky enough.)
>>I agree that a set of new hooks (as exemplified by WSDL-S) probably 
>>won't get us very far - not by itself, that is.  Of course the WSDL-S 
>>vision allows the hooks to point to anything (OWL-S, UML, WSMO, ...), 
>>which could be useful, but I think the community is also going to want 
>>some standardization regarding what's pointed to (and the implications 
>>of the pointing) before it gets really useful.
>>One very natural (and W3C-oriented) way to go, seems to me, would be a 
>>simple 2-step approach:
>>(1) Go ahead and standardize something like WSDL-S (as envisioned in the 
>>sa-ws charter:
>>(2) Get the SWS folks together with interested WS stakeholders in 
>>another working group to spell out how to specify, in a SemWeb-based 
>>manner, the low-hanging fruit that's at the intersection of most of the 
>>SWS proposals.
>>In my mind, what you mentioned above - preconditions, effects, 
>>non-functional properties - is a large part of this low-hanging fruit. 
>>Another piece is the ability to use a SemWeb language to specify the 
>>types of inputs and outputs (something which, in principle at least, you 
>>can already do in WSDL).  Another likely piece is the ability to locate 
>>services within a class hierarchy, around which your non-functional 
>>properties would be organized, and extended into specific domains.
>>Of course, once you've done (2), then it's not that important whether 
>>the resulting specs are located directly within a WSDL document or are 
>>pointed to, in some external location, by the WSDL-S annotations (as 
>>several people have observed).
>>This second step has been discussed in various conversations among the 
>>SWS camps, and I (for one) have the sense that it is pretty readily 
>>doable.  In fact, Rick Hull proposed more-or-less these 2 steps at the 
>>W3C Workshop on Frameworks for Semantics in Web Services.  Unfortunately 
>>at that point there wasn't adequate time left for discussion but I think 
>>many of the SWS folks, at least, were in sympathy with the idea.
>>- David

Received on Monday, 20 March 2006 21:01:18 UTC