RE: comments on Web Services architecture requirements. ( D-AC009 )

I think even 9.1 is dangerous, it will raise questions such as 

why isn't it a requirement that 

Any meta data about any aspect of the Web Services reference
architecture should be expressible with an OMG approved language (such as
UML 
itself, MOF )

Why isn't it a requirement that it shall be expressible using Topic Maps?.

The intent of Web Services architecture clearly is not to make a judgement
on the format of choice for metadata ( Neither should it be the intent of
W3c ). It should be sufficient to say the metadata should be expressible.

Regards,
Sateesh

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 2:57 PM
To: Narahari, Sateesh
Cc: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org'
Subject: Re: comments on Web Services architecture requirements. (
D-AC009 )


Hi Sateesh,

On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 01:36:55PM -0600, Narahari, Sateesh wrote:
> I would like to get the background for the following requirements.  Source
> of the requirements, reason for this requirement.

It came from the charter;

"The Working Group will also assess the relationship with the work
conducted in the Semantic Web Activity."

> D-AC009 
> is aligned with the semantic web initiative at W3C.
> 
> D-AR009.1 Any meta data about any aspect of the Web Services reference
> architecture should be expressible with an RDF based language (such as RDF
> itself, RDF Schema, DAML+OIL)

This is a measurable, though weak requirement.  It doesn't require that
we do anything except demonstrate that it's possible.

> D-AR009.2 All recommendations produced by the working group include a
> normative mapping between all XML technologies and RDF/XML.
> 
> D-AR009.3 All conceptual elements should be addressable directly via a URI
> reference

I'm not sure where the editors got those.  I, as champion, didn't see
them raised.  9.2 seems to be a stronger version of 9.1.  I'm not sure I
like it, for two reasons; one, producing these mappings can be tough.
And two, our work product is a reference architecture, not a particular
technology or set of technologies.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com

Received on Friday, 3 May 2002 17:41:03 UTC