W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-semann@w3.org > April 2006

Re: issue: Current Example Inadequate For Specification Document?

From: Joel Farrell <joelf@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 20:58:29 -0400
To: Holger Lausen <holger.lausen@deri.org>
Cc: SAWSDL WG <public-ws-semann@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF55E1DE40.2250A553-ON8525715C.000502D3-8525715C.00055B4C@us.ibm.com>

Hi Holger,

We can certainly use a different example or improve this one.  I think we
should keep it focused on a business problem to show that semantics apply
to real business integration problems.  Perhaps one of the scenarios we are
gathering will yield a better example.  The RosettaNet example was there
specifically to illustrate the concept of annotating the operation element,
since the RosettaNet functions are standardized.


public-ws-semann-request@w3.org wrote on 04/25/2006 10:11:17 AM:

> Hi,
> reading the spec more carefully I have the feeling that the RosettaNet
> example (or in general the purchase order scenario) is inadequate for
> the core specification documnent.
> In fact the example is only very loosely based on RosettaNet. RosettaNet
> itself only distributes DTD and also the tag names seem not to match
> (e.g. RosettaNet uses GTIN for prodcut identification whereas POItem.xsd
> seems to use EANCode).
> However, even if we remove the explicit reference to RosettaNet, I
> believe that due to the complexity of a purchase order scenario it can
> hardly provide a self contained example. Therefore I would prefer a more
> trivial example such as a weather forecast, which should be sufficient
> to illustrate the three pointers we are about to standardize.
> best
>   Holger
> --
> Holger Lausen
> Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI)
> http://www.deri.org/
> Tel:   +43 512 5076464
> Email: holger.lausen@deri.org
> [attachment "signature.asc" deleted by Joel Farrell/Cambridge/IBM]
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2006 00:58:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:12 UTC