RE: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public discussion

From the discussions so far in this thread, is there a consensus
that "though defining semantic equivalence of functional behavior is an
interesting idea,
it is very ill defined to be considered a requirement of Web Service
Architecture"

Thanks,

-Suresh
Sterling Commerce   



-----Original Message-----
From: Newcomer, Eric [mailto:Eric.Newcomer@iona.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 10:46 AM
To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public discussion



I think it's best if we concentrate on developing the reference architecture
as "job No. 1" rather than try to reach conclusion on the extent to which
semantic inferences are integral.

The industry really needs guidance on what a web service is and isn't, and
what is and is not included in a Web services architecture that does more
than the basics.

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 4:07 PM
To: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org'
Subject: RE: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public discussion





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fgm@fla.fujitsu.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 12:18 PM
> To: Champion, Mike
> Cc: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org'
> Subject: Re: [RTF] Behavior definition of Services - public discussion
> 
> 
> The bottom line: avoid phrasing the question in terms of equivalence, 
> instead phrase the question in terms of `have I heard of this name 
> before'?

My bottom line is 

> >> concepts like semantic equivalence that
> >> could create expectations well beyond what Web Services can actually 
> >> deliver today.

I'm eagerly looking forward to seeing and using technologies using "a graph
of concepts that a web service provider  publishes to describe his or her
service. A client applies a matching test to that graph -- which might
include getting references from other graphs -- to see if the graph is
congruent with his desired service."  Maybe I'm not looking in the right
places, but I just don't see that in the real world of web services today.  

Thus, it is IMHO inappropriate to *require* the WSA to accomodate ideas
which *may* prove powerful, until their practical value has been
demonstrated.  The W3C -- to bang one of my favorite drums, sorry -- is most
successful when working to standardize practice, and least successful when
trying to do computer science by committee.  I would be very happy to
incorporate field-tested semantic inference technology into the WSA, but I
can't agree to require it based on the current state of the art.

Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2002 10:08:42 UTC