W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sws-ig@w3.org > March 2006

Re: WSDL Debate Continued..

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:27:53 -0500
Message-Id: <9dbc3ac69f483ee5e560fc3af2266d39@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>, public-sws-ig@w3.org, retsxob123 <cutlip@us.ibm.com>
To: David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>

On Mar 20, 2006, at 4:01 PM, David Martin wrote:

> 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
>     http://www.w3.org/2005/09/sws-ig-charter.
> 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).

Well, we could do more:

"""The Semantic Web Services Interest Group exists mainly as an email 
forum; it does not conduct regular distributed or face-to-face 
meetings, although occasional workshops and meetings (teleconferences, 
IRC meetings or face-to-face meetings) may be arranged as needed. The 
Interest Group may hold meetings (e.g. "Birds-Of-a-Feather" sessions) 
at conferences, at the discretion of the Chair and W3C team contact."""

> 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.

We could also do an XG. The interest group is a natural place to try to 
get an XG going:
	<http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/>

>   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.)

+1

> The Semantics for Web Services Characterization Group:
>     http://www.w3.org/2005/10/sws-charac-charter.html,
> 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.)

I recommend, myself, action, but in a lightweight way. The problem with 
a lightweight way is that it's hard to get people to actually be 
engaged.

Be nice if SWSs as an area were more concrete problem driven.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Monday, 20 March 2006 22:28:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:32:52 UTC