- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:31:51 +0100
- To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
I raised an issue in WS-Policy about the relation between WS-Policy attachment. The issue is more or less resolved with this email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0051 In particular: """We have discussed the relation between Policy and Semantic Annotations briefly at our recent f2f meeting and we came to the conclusion that we are attaching different things to WSDL, even though both specs are general enough that they could be bent to perform similar functions. The major difference is in the intention of the attached information. SAWSDL aims to enhance the description e.g. for discovery (even if on the XML level the WSDL wouldn't match), whereas Policy aims show what restrictions there are when the WSDL is followed e.g. in invocation. I guess I could say the basic difference is similar to the difference between XML Schema and OWL.""""" Now, I accept that the two WGs don't want to work on it. I certainly don't want to work on it :) But I find this reply to be a bit strange for the following reasons: 1) Why should the different *intentions* of a representation matter to how it's related to the WSDL? 2) Do they have different intentions, really? 3) Is the analogy between XML Schema and OWL correct? (I think not since the difference between XML Schema and OWL is in the *semantics*, not in the intent) There are others, but I thought the interest group might have some ideas. I rather suspect that SWSs as a distinct area are in danger of simply being left behind. I we can't handle/work with Policy...what *are* we going to do? Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2006 11:32:15 UTC