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

All,

Champion, Mike wrote:


> 
> As I understand it, our charter says that the WSA be "aligned with" the SW
> activity and we're discussing what that means in terms of concrete
> requirements.  I think that means that we work with one another, learn from
> one another, and be ready to jump on any SW breakthroughs that will help
> clarify the WS Architecture.   "SHOULD be capable of being mapped to RDF"
> gives the WSA an incentive to learn from the SW's successes; "SHOULD provide
> a mapping" commits us (albeit weakly) to do work irrespective of the SW's
> actual success or failure.


Exactly, and the proposal I have put on the table[1] is aimed at
trying to capture precisely this sentiment which I believed to be
a balanced compromise of the various opinions expressed.

Unfortunately, the SW/WS issue is imbued with lots of history which
I believe is clouding the discussion. The proposal was NOT intended to be
a resurrection of that debate, but a discussion on the merits of the
compromise language for our requirements document.

So, to reiterate, what I have proposed is that D-AC009 be changed
to read:

	"is not unnecessarily misaligned with the Semantic Web initiative"

and D-AC009.2 be changed to read:

	"New Web Services technologies, developed by W3C Web
	Services WGs, SHOULD be capable of being mapped to RDF/XML."

Mark, as you seem to be the only one to object to this phrasing,
can I ask that you reconsider your position? Is this a
lie-down-in-the-road issue for you? Or, can you live with the proposed
wording?

Cheers,

Chris

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002May/0291.html

Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 09:34:21 UTC