- From: Ulrich Küster <Ulrich.Kuester@uni-jena.de>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:44:01 +0100
- To: member-xg-swsc@w3.org
- CC: public-xg-swsc@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, | I agree with B) in principle, but I don't know that everyone should | follow your format. I just would like to clarify, that I never suggested everyone should follow my format (which is why I also pointed out flaws of my approach). I just suggested to come up with guidelines for a format like your suggestions which provide an excellent start. | 1) A common machine readable format such as XML, KIF, SAWSDL, or something | for which there exists available free parsers and/or well-published | specification. I don't like this one. The requirement of the existence of well-published specifications is a quite sloppy one. What is well-published? We should definitely allow everyone to use the formalism of their choice, even if it is not as standard as XML or KIF but - for instance - the rules used by Tiziana or DSD. :-) | 2) The content should be useful for solving the problem(s). An | example would be an ontology for time that enables different | problems to be solved with a minimal change. It might be | a way of annotating the WSDL so that a problem solver can | work with it more automatically. This addresses the issue of promoting reuse. That's a fair issue but I would like to put more importance on promoting the general understanding for the nature and approach of the solutions than the reuse of elements of them. | 3) The content should illustrate some principles of the approach | that others can evaluate the utility of it, perhaps deciding | to adapt and re-use it. Certainly! | 4) The content should understandable without having to install | a large system, but it is desirable that there be a pointer | to a working system that will consume the content. The more | information about the working context of the system, better. I agree. I would add and stress that the content should enable the reader to understand a particular solution on the technical level and preferably get a solution running (after all running and implemented solutions is what the challenge is about). I only get a real feeling for an approach if I have used it to solve a concrete problem. As an example, I do not only want to see the time ontologies of the other approaches, I want to see how they actually described the services and goals to get a feeling which problems have been expressed and solved how. Maybe we need to come up with a scenario specific list of items to be adressed. For discovery for instance I would really like to see all services and goals and I would like to see how the data-mediation and the integration of dynamic information was done. I would like to ask for a certain completeness of the upload itself and the documentation of the upload. Best regards, Uli -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32) Comment: GnuPT 2.9.2 iD8DBQFHnYe/8VxeCU3I0jARAtDZAJ0UCSYTevx5qsLCQkE/8tRwmDs/hgCeJyRr amvJzvh9tBrqECd0T4DujyY= =fZqh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Monday, 28 January 2008 07:44:41 UTC