- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:36:18 +0200
- To: Matthias Klusch <klusch@dfki.de>
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, public-sws-ig@w3.org
Matthias, I'll skip the parts that are old discussions, as Bijan said and I'd tend to agree. I'll happily discuss them personally or on the SAWSDL list. On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 16:07 +0200, Matthias Klusch wrote: > Anyway, my question rather was what is supposed to come next for > R&D on SEMANTIC web services from the point of view of the ** W3C **. Almost two years ago, the W3C planned to work on SAWSDL (nearly finished) and in parallel, in another group (later switched to this IG), on use cases and requirements for SWS, which hasn't happened much, but it might be starting. I expect that, having SAWSDL, the W3C will expect SWS frameworks that build on SAWSDL, or separate bits and pieces of the frameworks, which can eventually become Member Submissions. Then the W3C will judge their maturity and value and perhaps start new work. But as Carine said, maybe we could wait for the end of the XG and then organize the next W3C workshop. I'd have to check, but I expect DERI Innsbruck could offer hosting; but it might be contentious seeing how we hosted the workshop two years ago. I share Bijan's concern that having it at a conference could make it (seem) academically biased (perhaps unless it's organized by the W3C). > Is there any ** explanation ** attached to the proposed recommendation > of SAWSDL by the W3C (similar to those for the submissions > they received in 2005)? It would be highly interesting to read it. Apart from the historical record (report from the workshop, Carine's suggestion to start a SAWSDL WG and another group to work on requirements and use cases), I'm afraid there's no separate explanation document for SAWSDL. > And, second, where to discuss - as members of the SWS research > comunity - the implications of the upcoming decision. > Personally, I would prefer the options 2) and 3) suggested by Bijan. Starting here would be an option. 8-) Jacek
Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 18:36:33 UTC