W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sws-ig@w3.org > July 2007

Re: SAWSDL in WXMO-MX [was Re: Commercial/Real-world Semantic Web Services?]

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 14:22:13 +0100
Message-Id: <432F6B38-DB76-4163-ACB4-6C23B78A64E6@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
To: Matthias Klusch <klusch@dfki.de>

On Jul 6, 2007, at 1:31 PM, Matthias Klusch wrote:

> dear bijan,
> it gets even more interesting now:
> W3C is pleased to announce the advancement of "Semantic Annotations  
> for WSDL and XML Schema" to Proposed Recommendation:
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/PR-sawsdl-20070705/

It is interesting! Congrats to them.

> Pointing to our very brief discussion (below), i am wondering whether
> there will be any need for an event that is going to discuss this and
> the consequences for not only the large R&D investments on owl-s,  
> wsml, swsf world wide but the vision of semantic web services itself?

If I may present a slightly different take:

	When SAWSDL finishes, what's next for SWS at the W3C?

I.e., is it just evangalism now? Is there future standards work? Do  
we need/want an XG? A WG? To do what exactly.

WSDL also went to recommendation(finally! whew!), and WS-Policy is  
proceeding. So, swsers...what do we want/think should be done?

> personally, i would highly appreciate to obtain some valuable answers
> from the community and the W3C representatives on this publicly
> and transparently at such a forum (without side-wars), maybe at the  
> next
> iswc conference?
> what do you think?

It is reasonable, I think. There are three possibilities, I think:

	1) Have a meeting at the Tech plenary in Nov in Boston.
	Pros: lots of w3c interaction; SW-IG had meetings to good effect there
	Cons: Awkward wrt ISWC; far for a lot of major SWS players; may be  
too late to get a slot

	2) Have a workshop associated with a conference (such as ISWC)
	Pros: some flexibility; if we pick the right conference, lots of  
players might go; ISWC folks might host; there are WS conferences  
that could produce some synergy
	Cons: Often academically biased; ISWC itself is far for lots of  
people and the formal workshop application is closed so would have to  
do something ad hoc

	3) Have a W3C follow up workshop to the one on Frameworks for  
Semantics in WS:
	Pros: It's been two years; often a lot of W3C engagement; flexible  
(even could be coloed with a conference)
	Cons: Needs a host; don't know if the W3C would be interested

I'm happy to help facilitate any of these as I may. Carine...any  
thoughts esp. on 1 or 3? Are they impossible/unlikely/unwise?

Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 13:22:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:33:00 UTC