- From: Terry R. Payne <trp@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 19:05:30 +0100
- To: "'Bijan Parsia'" <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Cc: "'Semantic Web Services Language Committee'" <swsl-committee@daml.org>, <www-ws@w3.org>
Bijan, > > Minor comment (for discussion perhaps?) > > [snip] > > It is for discussion, and we should take this discussion to www-ws as > per our policty and because there are folks there who think differently > (I think) that we have been used to. Oh yeah - sorry, wrong list. Ok, to www-ws it goes... > > What I'm curious is, other than a broadening acceptance and > > understanding of wide-area service integration, and perhaps a bunch of > > useful standards (e.g. WSDL), what are Web Service technologies > > actually > > giving us? > > What of *Web* technologies themselves? Useful, most definitely, but I firmly believe we should accommodate the developments in WS standards, but not be constrained by them. For example, I recently had a discussion with someone who had made the assumption that all messages between WSDL clients would be strongly typed, and formatted in XML (which isn't always the case - consider http bindings, for instance). > (And it might be that the Web or Web Services constrain us in ways that > something like CORBA might not. One decision is whether to overcome > those constrains (e.g., by building up another layer) or to work within > them because we think it gets us something.) We should harness what WS give us, but... well I'm about to repeat what I said above. Also, I'm seriously concerned that we could risk re-inventing the wheel, by ignoring work in other service-anaolgous research fields (e.g. DAI, Grid, Multi-Agents etc). > I meant to add that it's totally unclear to me that the "web influence" > on semantic web services is limited, in any way, to matchmaking. Most > particularly, I think it affects composition in a lot of ways (or > could) and thus process modeling. See: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws/2003Oct/0024.html > (which I don't understand) as at least one assertion that there's a > special WebLike way of doing composition. Terry _______________________________________________________________________ Terry R. Payne, PhD. | http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~trp/index.html University of Southampton | Voice: +44(0)23 8059 8343 [Fax: 8059 2865] Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK | Email: terry@acm.org / trp@ecs.soton.ac.uk > > > What I'm curious is, other than a broadening acceptance and > > understanding of wide-area service integration, and perhaps a bunch of > > useful standards (e.g. WSDL), what are Web Service technologies > > actually > > giving us? > > What of *Web* technologies themselves? > > This is exactly what I think we need to address head on. I'll happily > start a thread on this topic on www-ws, but I think that having a > specific session on this issue at the F2F would be valuable as well. > > (And it might be that the Web or Web Services constrain us in ways that > something like CORBA might not. One decision is whether to overcome > those constrains (e.g., by building up another layer) or to work within > them because we think it gets us something.) > > I meant to add that it's totally unclear to me that the "web influence" > on semantic web services is limited, in any way, to matchmaking. Most > particularly, I think it affects composition in a lot of ways (or > could) and thus process modeling. See: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws/2003Oct/0024.html > (which I don't understand) as at least one assertion that there's a > special WebLike way of doing composition. > > I think its well within our mandate to study such possibilties. Indeed, > it may be required of us. > > Cheers, > Bijan.
Received on Sunday, 12 October 2003 14:06:08 UTC