SWS IG scratchpad

Should SWS-IG do anything at the tech plenary?
posted by bijan at 2004-11-30 17:01

bijan: What do #sws-igers think?
bijan: I'm in favor of SOMETHING there. Basically to show that we're alive and a growing community.
bijan: Of course, if no one shows...well...that's another message :)
bijan: carine reports that there will be a workshop (on SWS) in that same spring, presumably to gather information prior to forming a working group.
bijan: I think these are distinct, and the the plenary could help build interest in the workshop.

E-Gov presentation wrt the "Internet Business Logic" system
posted by bijan at 2004-11-30 16:16

bijan: I think.
bijan: Warning, pdf.
bijan: Comments requested by adrianw.
bijan: Well, my first comment is my perennial one: I hate your website :)
bijan: It find it strange and hard to use. Lots of colors (in a sea of white).
bijan: Ok, enough with the chit chat! Onto the commentary
bijan: (Since I should be working on a paper, clearly, I must dispense free advice instead :))
bijan: Well, right off on the first question: "Will automated integration be achieved as trusted relationshihps mature?"
bijan: One might think that in a web context, it's the integration between parties not in particularly strong trusted relationships (i.e., that crosses institutional trust boundaries) that are most interesting.
bijan: Slide 12: "and coming next year to a screen near you...Rules" That's pretty durn optimistic :) Even if there were a working group next year (possible, I suppose) no recommendation would emerge for at least another 2 years.
bijan: But big ole props for Connecticut (sigh).
bijan: Slide 20: "A term is defined by the set of its superclasses in the taxonomy, and by its properties." Not really. At least not in OWL. Heck even in a taxonomy system, you'd expect that part of the definition would be the subclasses.
bijan: Slide 30: Well, completely...COMPLETELY uncompelling to me. It's not lightweight, and its not English.
bijan: And the case is disanalogous anyway. There's more (or other) stuff going on on this slide that isn't in the prior ones besides the "English"
bijan: Oh, and the real critical point: has there been a user evaluation? E.g., a user study? Is it really more effective than, say, regular logic, or sexp (not RDF/XML since that is the Devil's Own Notation).

W3C Technical Plenary 2004
posted by danbri at 2004-11-30 10:14

danbri: Doh, I was looking for 2005 one. Anyway, I was just thinking out loud re Semantic Web IG and SW Services IG... It's likely there'll be a SWIG meeting at least.
bijan: Alas, there prolly aren't enough warm bodies to make a decent SWS-IG
bijan: Perhaps as a sub part of SWIG?
danbri: Warm optional. Yup, could have a services-y chunk of SWIG agenda. I'll talk to Carine and Hugo...
bijan: BTW, why the hell am I pimping semantic web services?!?!? I hate the semantic web AND web services!!! Surely there must be someone of fluffier temperment who could shoulder this burden!
bijan: Ahem. Sorry. Meds off. Sleep deprived. Knickers...when they get twisted like that I get cranky.
danbri: But the Web's lovely?

Rich Salz returns to XML.com with WSDL slam
posted by bijan at 2004-11-30 01:19

bijan: Ok, the money shot: "To put it simply, these specifications are astoundingly bad."
bijan: But Rich! That sentence is astoundingly false
bijan: Well, maybe not astoundingly, but I figure what's hyperbole for the columnistgoose is fair game for the wgmembergander.
bijan: He, in fact, concedes that his criticisms are largely off base, "While these documents might be useful to someone developing a WSDL tool, they are practically useless for a web services developer who wants to use WSDL to define their interface."
bijan: (Or possibly off base.) The main parts of the spec, parts 1, 2, and 3 are not intended for users of WSDL, but for implementors of WSDL.
bijan: So, unless he thinks that his "might be useful" isn't going to pan out, he is simply off target.
bijan: "But there is an even bigger problem with the sentence quoted above: there is no normative schema." Another falsehood!
bijan: Although I'm having trouble finding it as such.
bijan: Well, I could go on. There is substantive criticism, of sorts (e.g., he doesn't like the inheritence model).
bijan: Hmm. I meant the last bit to parody Rich's ending. I am a member of the WSDL working group, but joined after many of the decisions were made. So I don't relaly have a vested interest (I'm there for the RDF mapping). But really, I'm up for the entertaining screed as much as the next guy, but I prefer something with a bit more actual bite.
bijan: I've had otherwise sensible people brush off looking at the documents (and thus the language) based on Rich's article (or at least claim so...I doubt they would have read them anyway :)).
bijan: Not helpful in the end.

Where are all the SWSIG people?
posted by bijan at 2004-11-30 00:49

bijan: It's hard to believe that there's only 6 people on this channel. We must grow! GROW!
bijan: Mostly so I can stop participating :)

OWL-S Submission to the W3C
posted by bijan at 2004-11-30 00:46

bijan: Don't know if it was already chumped, but hey, it's not like there's a ton of traffic here :)
bijan: So, the question is....working group? On what? For what? With what intentions/scope/result? How will it mix with other W3C work?
bijan: What about WSMO? Will it get submitted?
bijan: What about all the other SWS frameworks?
bijan: Will this help anyone get a job/tenure?