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

I'll take that as a strong 'D' against the currently drafted
text of this item and its successor proposals;)

How about the following:

<proposal>
"New Web Services WGs chartered to develop new technologies
identified in the architecture SHOULD be capable of being
mapped to RDF/XML."
</proposal>

This would remove the onus on a WG that may not have the
requisite expertise to perform the mapping from having to do so
and yet preserve the intent as captured in my recent proposal
for an amended D-AG009 which reads (as proposed):

 > <proposal from="chair">
 > "is not unnecessarily misaligned with the Semantic Web initiative"
 > </proposal>

Cheers,

Chris



David Orchard wrote:

> BEA is aghast that the web services activity is even pondering requiring the
> provision of an RDF binding for XML technologies provided in the activity,
> and the resultant repercussions, like slowing up schedules..
> 
> The W3C membership CLEARLY indicated that web services IS decoupled from the
> Semantic Web Activity.  The Director SPECIFICALLY asked this question to the
> AC list and got an incredibly strong negative response from the community on
> the prospect of coupling the.  This issue has not been re-opened and we
> consider closed.
> 
> There is NO mandate or rationale for the WSA to do this extra and
> unnecessary work.  This is scope and requirements creep of the most flagrant
> kind.
> 
> We strongly oppose the wording of D-AR009.2 and vote against this, and
> support IBM and SAG's position.
> 
> I apologize that I haven't been able to vote or speak on this topic until
> now, but I do get some time off every now and then ;-)
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave Orchard
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
>>Behalf Of Champion, Mike
>>Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 11:00 AM
>>To: wsawg public
>>Subject: 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 20:07:18 UTC