- From: <michael.mahan@nokia.com>
- Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 09:46:07 -0500
- To: <distobj@acm.org>, <Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com>
- Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
> > > So, how should 9 relate to 11 then? I guess 11 is the Web > as it is today, 9 > > relates to the abstract model of the Web promulgated by the W3C? > > I see 11 as identifying two specific architectural points; > "distributed" (was this intended to be "decentralized"?), and > "heterogenous environment" (presumably referring to programming > languages, operating systems, etc..). 9, by virtue of "align with web > architecture", covers these, IMO. In my kickoff of AG0011 I did comment on these 2 offered properties of what it means to be consistent with the current web architecture. I believe there are other design principles of the existing web besides these in order to verify consistency. Goal 11 is all about, IMO, identifying all those significant principles/properties/constraints and then defining some requirements which states that our reference architecture does not contradict property_1, property_2, etc. If this is correct, it sounds much different than the main theme of 9, which is to focus on the SW principles: machine understandable semantics, KR, non apriori clients, inferencing, etc. However since 9 is about consistency with what exists (current web) and 11 is about consistency (alignment) with what is envisioned (semantic web), one big overall goal of 'consistency' is understandable. That said, I see this as more of a management task. We are trying to get to a set of requirements, and divide and conquer is a good strategy - even if some the chosen boundaries are somewhat arbitrary. > > Also, is "machine automation" part of our mission? > > The working Web service definition we came up with suggests > it is, IMO, > when it says ".. supports direct interactions with other software > applications or components ..". > > > One can agree it's a > > good thing, and certainly related to whatever we mean when > we say that a web > > service is about the web being processable by machines, not > just humans. > > But we don't want to set the bar too high: web services > enable hard-coded > > programs to communicate via the web (much as they can with > DCOM or CORBA > > over LANs), whereas the semantic web is about enabling more > flexible, > > data-driven, and "intelligent" use of the data on the web, no? > > No. Hard coded programs can already talk over the Web via HTTP's > methods. Only, because every HTTP component exposes the same generic > interface (GET/PUT/POST, etc..), you don't know the specific type of > the resource you're dealing with. The Semantic Web gives you that > information (to start - it goes well beyond that, of course). > > So ... my suggestion would be one goal. I could live with two goals > though - I don't think it's that big a deal. I'm just > raising the topic > of Web architecture now, because my impression is that many WG members > have not received much exposure to it. > I still think that the best way to proceed is too acknowledge that the last part of 9: "and the overall existing web architecture" is redundant with 11 and should be removed. I am flexible however and if a quorum feels strongly enough to merge these, then that is OK with me. Maybe one bigger goal of overall consistency with subgoals like AG0006. MikeM
Received on Saturday, 9 March 2002 21:16:44 UTC