- From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:08:06 -0400
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
- Cc: WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFC9DE1E4A.8ED63644-ON8525704C.0045B6BD-8525704C.00482672@ca.ibm.com>
Jacek, Yes, WSMO counts. Our position is that the if the proponents of semantic Web do not think the RDF mapping is a high priority, then we agree that this deliverable can be dropped. OWL-S is the most obvious proponent in the contenxt of W3C since OWL is already a W3C speciifcation and this requirement comes from W3C. I understand that WSMO has been submitted to W3C, which gives WSMO folks like you a legitimate claim to do this RDF mapping work. That fact that WSMO also has an Eclipse editor makes me even more supportive of you doing the work :-) I assume there is a natural RDF mapping and that it would be acceptable to any semantic Web persuasion. Is that correct? Arthur Ryman, Rational Desktop Tools Development phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077 assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411 fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920 mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca intranet: http://labweb.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/ Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 07/28/2005 06:02 AM To Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA cc WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org> Subject Re: IBM Interest in the WSDL 2.0 RDF Mapping Arthur, do the proponents of WSMO also count? I.e. if Bijan (of the OWL-S persuasion) decides to give up and let me (of the WSMO persuasion) give it a try, will IBM object to the result? It'll still be OWL-based and certainly reviewed by the OWL-S people in due course, you needn't worry about that. 8-) Best regards, Jacek On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 12:11 -0400, Arthur Ryman wrote: > > I reviewed the current lack of forward progress on the RDF mapping > with the IBM expert in Semantic Web to determine our level of interest > in this deliverable. Our position is that this work should be handled > by the proponents of OWL-S. If they do not feel this is a high > priority, then IBM agrees that it should be dropped. > > Arthur Ryman, > Rational Desktop Tools Development > > phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077 > assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411 > fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920 > mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca > intranet: http://labweb.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/
Received on Thursday, 28 July 2005 13:08:35 UTC