- From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 16:28:41 -0400
- To: Dave Hollander <dmh@contivo.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
At 01:17 PM 10/15/2002 -0700, Dave Hollander wrote: >. . . Nor, as co-chair, am >I willing to add debating this to the agenda prior to having >the next draft out. +1 We have enough on our plates right now. Let's not open this issue yet. >I do believe we will have to dig into ontologies and other >discovery meta-data soon, just not right now. > >DaveH > >-----Original Message----- >From: David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org] >Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1:56 PM >To: Heather Kreger; www-ws-arch@w3.org >Subject: Re: remembering business data and taxonomy in description > > > >Heather, > >What you have described is formally called an "ontology": >http://www.w3.org/2002/Talks/0813-semweb-dbooth/slide37-0.html > >Clearly, if we do define a WS ontology for this purpose, then either RDF or >W3C's emerging Web Ontology Language (known as "OWL") should be used. This >will: (a) ensure maximum flexibility and re-use potential; and (b) ensure >that the ontologies will always be cleanly extensible, without breaking >existing software and without having to wait for a standards group to >sanctify new "facts" or "rules" that people want to use. > >At 07:07 PM 10/11/2002 -0400, Heather Kreger wrote: > >After the stack was accepted as a starting point at the face to face, > >someone brought up the need for business description and taxonomy to > >be described and associated with a service in a way that does not prescribe > >that UDDI be used. > > > >We had initially thought that this may mean a new description layer for the > >stack. But > >this didn't feel right. > > > >However, I have talked with some others about this > >and would like to propose that this type of information is actually > >'information about the > >service'. We had put other 'information about the service' in the policy > >layer and I would > >like to propose that this is where business and taxonomies should go as > >well. > >I believe that policies will contain 'facts' and 'rules'. Business data and > >taxonomies > >are facts. > >Once we have a policy language (ws-policy), there will need to be groups > >who define > >standards 'sets' of policies to standardize keywords and concepts for > >things like 'timeout', etc. > >I think that some group will need to define a standard owning business > >policy and > >taxonomy policy. I think that the UDDIEntry defined by the UDDI > >specification > > provides an excellent set of starter data for such a group. > > > >Opinions? > > > >-- >David Booth >W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard >Telephone: +1.617.253.1273 -- David Booth W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2002 16:27:02 UTC