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

Agree.

Or, perhaps SHOW US how we can use RDF to perform our WG tasks easier or
better.  For example (and I have no idea whether this is plausible) what
about helping to deal with mappings between the numbered goal's in the main
document and the usage cases?  I was thinking of making a spreadsheet (so I
could easily order either by goal or by usage case), but I figured you folks
might get bent if I used a (gasp!) proprietary spreadsheet product.  So does
RDF provide some sort of magic bullet here?  I'm willing to learn ...

-----Original Message-----
From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 9:56 AM
To: 'wsawg public'
Subject: RE: D-AC009.2 discussion points and proposal(s)




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 10:24 AM
> To: Christopher Ferris
> Cc: Katia Sycara; 'wsawg public'
> Subject: Re: D-AC009.2 discussion points and proposal(s)
> 

> "New Web Services technologies, developed by W3C Web
> Services WGs, SHOULD be mapped to RDF."

Sigh, I can sortof live with this, but it implies that the all-too-busy WG's
really should be doing the mapping (although they can get to  Recommendation
status if they don't).  I would be happier with Chris' original wording,
which implies that the WGs should themselves that the mapping is possible,
and that someone who sees a tangible benefit to doing the mapping can carry
it out.

As Dave Orchard said quite clearly and forcefully yesterday, the membership
has spoken on this issue, and it's time to put it behind us.  If the
semantic web community thinks the membership is misguided or insufficiently
visionary, SHOW US how a tighter coupling between web services and RDF can
improve our web services products.  But we have to get the WSA Requirements
done first ...

Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2002 13:36:57 UTC