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

Re: WSDL-S and the new WG

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 10:39:18 -0500
Message-Id: <1b32679a630b2d353f954c86956b9d42@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: SWS-IG <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
To: Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org>

On Mar 21, 2006, at 7:40 AM, Carine Bournez wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 06:59:30AM -0500, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> Also, while profiles in OWL-S are only OWL, preconditions and effects
>> are parameterizable, as are input and output type (though they must be
>> URI identified).
>>
>> Ok, that's just a bit of nitpicking...though it did jump out at me :)
>>
>> The real question is that WSDL-S, the current version, *does* define
>> precondition and effect (for example) elements (to be children of
>> operation elements). Are these ruled out of scope?
>
> yes, they are out of scope (per the SAWSDL WG charter)
> they will be in scope of other discussions in other groups at some 
> point.

I don't understand *why* they are out of scope? In terms of WSDL-S 
elements, what is *in* scope? Can you enumerate them please?

>> (There are many many issues even when you agree on the langauges for
>> expressing them, e.g., where they are to be evaluated. (Which might 
>> not
>> be hard or could be very hard, depending.)
>>
>> Actually, WSDL-S seems to include hooks for most of the OWL-S profile,
>> with reference to OWL-S....er...isn't this supposed to be
>> controversial? What am I missing?
>
> Why would it be controversial?

I don't know...I don't know why preconditions and effects are 
controversial either!

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 21 March 2006 15:39:28 UTC

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