- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:36:56 -0500
- To: Paul Denning <pauld@mitre.org>
- Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
On Jan 30, 2004, at 12:12 PM, Paul Denning wrote: > At 11:45 AM 2004-01-30, Bijan Parsia wrote: >> 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. > > Please discuss these interests that are counter to using WSA as an > upper architecture. For example, if you follow discussions on public-sws-ig, you'll see strong interest in building a framework that its more abstract that SOA, at least in that services, per se, aren't a particularly high level concept. OWL-S is conceived as an upper ontology for services. There are people who favor OWL-S. They have about equal institutional status, except OWL-S is still being developed. There are some people who don't favor ontology based approaches. There are some people who favor ontology based approaches who don't care for upper ontology (as opposed to mapping) approaches to integrating ontologies. I could imagine that the understanding of web services of some folks could be different (or would evolve). I wouldn't be surprised if there were NIH issues. Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Friday, 30 January 2004 12:37:14 UTC