RE: D-AC009.2 discussion points and proposal(s)

I strongly agree with the position labelled IBM -- this is an excessive
burden on the WG unless some SW experts/advocates volunteer  to do the work.
As such, it should not be a strong requirement on the WG as a whole.  I have
no problem with this as a statement of a desireable goal.

I also agree with CVX -- at this stage, the WS requirements should be
driving the SW requirements rather than vice versa.   


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 1:33 PM
> To: wsawg public
> Subject: D-AC009.2 discussion points and proposal(s)
> 
> 
> D-AR009.2
> "All recommendations produced by the working group include a 
> normative mapping between all XML 
> technologies and RDF/XML."
> 
> CVX: I do not think that semantic web requirements should be 
> driving the web services architecture 
> group, but more the reverse.  I don't have any particular 
> objection to supplying mappings to 
> RDF/XML, but I don't like making it a requirement with the 
> word "all" showing up repeatedly.  Maybe 
> this is because I don't really know what is involved.  If it 
> is really easy, let's just do it in 
> order to be cooperative with a promising research effort 
> (semantic web).  If it is time-consuming or 
> restrictive in some way, however, I don't like this being a 
> requirement.  If this goal is 
> articulated at all I'd like to see some sort of escape 
> clause, like "An effort will be made to 
> provide mappings ..." or something.
> 
> SUNW: We agree with Hugo's suggested update to the wording: 
> "New technologies
> identified in the architecture must include a normative 
> mapping between all
> XML technologies and RDF/XML."  This was originally proposed 
> in the thread
> at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002May/0075.html
> 
> 
> IBM: I think this is an undue burden on this working group and
> requires a semantic web expert team in the group to volunteer
> to do this work.  We have a significant amount of work and
> agreement to achieve, a reoccuring concern (which we share)
> about time to market for this architecture. I think adding
> this requirement may cause significant burden and may
> jeapardize ability to deliver in a short period of time.
> 
> At the very least, this should be done JOINTLY with resources
> from the semantic web activity
> 
> W3C: See 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002May/0075.html
> 
> Rereading this, maybe "recommendations" in this requirements is
> talking about recommending now technologies and is actually OK. This
> wording did generate some confusion about what it meant though.
> 
> Anymay, I agree with the requirement but the wording may need some
> tweaking.
> 
> DCX: Are we really supposed to provide a mapping between *ALL 
> XML technologies* in
> general and RDF/XML?
> 
> PF: I prefer Hugo's rephrasing
> 
> <proposal from="Hugo">
> "New technologies
> identified in the architecture must include a normative 
> mapping between all
> XML technologies and RDF/XML."
> </proposal>
> 
> Or, a slight twist that attempts to clarify scope:
> 
> <proposal from="chair">
> "New Web Services WGs chartered to develop new technologies
> identified in the architecture must be required to provide a normative
> mapping to RDF/XML."
> </proposal>
>

Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2002 14:00:30 UTC