- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:45:30 -0500
- To: "Stephane Fellah" <fellah@pcigeomatics.com>
- Cc: "Katia Sycara" <katia@cs.cmu.edu>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
On Jan 30, 2004, at 11:24 AM, Stephane Fellah wrote: > > This is good news. Can I assume safely that this ontology will be > considered as the upper-ontology for the W3C web services architecture, No. At least, not in my opinion. But I have funny views about upper-ontologeis. And, of course, it depends on what your safely requirements are. The Architecture document won't be a recommendation, so won't have any normative status at all. > on which other ontologies such as OWL-S should hook in ? Should in what sense? It's not entirely clear that the current OWL-S can entirely hookin. There is some desire by certain members of certain W3C working groups members to build on the architecture work. But there is no institutional promises supporting that. There are extra-W3C groups (OWL-S coalition, SWSI) who have interest in the WSA work, but they have no institutional constraints either and have some interests that are counter to using WSA as an upper arch. Finally, the arch work isn't, by the members own admission, finsihed. And it's not been widely scrutinized (yet). So, it's a good thing, but I don't think you can make any assumptions about what will be done with it. Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Friday, 30 January 2004 11:46:08 UTC