Web Services Coordination Group

 

 

<noone> Sorry, running late again. But I'll be there!

<mnot> Meeting: Web Services Coordination Group

<mikem> yes - that is me

<scribe> scribe: pauld

srt: walking to London Bridge and away from IRC
... any issues to be discussed

mikem: would like to discuss rechartering of xmlp

srt: let's keep this to 30 mins
... will buy pauld beer
... calls for approval of previous minutes
... minutes approved

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-cg/2005Dec/0001.html

Schedule

srt: any changes to schedule to be recorded

<scribe> ACTION: pauld to contact Hugo regarding F2F planning for the XSD Patterns for Databinding WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/20-ws-cg-minutes.html#action01]

Action Item Review

srt: Hugo to write a glossary [PENDING]
... Adding semantic to web services technology on the Agenda [will be discussed today in AOB]

RDF Mapping in CDL

srt: we have to deliver an RDF mapping for CDL. WS-Chor WG asked for this deliverable to be discussed in the CG or Semantic Web CG

marsh: is this a charter requirement you have?

srt: not on our Rec track, a working group note would be sufficient
... but we don't have the resource or expertise to deliver such a thing
... would like to solicit resource from the Semantic Web community

Marsh: sounds like the approach you should take

mnot: should include a deadline

<scribe> ACTION: srt to solicit resource for a RDF mapping for CDL [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/20-ws-cg-minutes.html#action02]

<scribe> ACTION: to negotiate a deadline for delivering RDF mapping for their Primer [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/20-ws-cg-minutes.html#action03]

marsh: we've been through this before in WSD. We're chartered to deliver a Rec RDF mapping, but have very few WG members who need such a mapping to declare victory or ship product.
... raising noise to abandon the deliverable and joining the Semantic Web Services CG result in advice to publish work in progress with warnings that the deliverable was at risk
... this facilitated /some/ resource - two members, but that doesn't seem enough to publish as a deliverable of the entire WG given lack of understanding of this work amongst the other members

srt: would like to give the Semantic Web community the chance to deliver, but if not we will have to move forward without them

marsh: mappings into RDF could be looked at in a separate WG

pauld: understands WSDL and CDL are descriptions, but wonders if lack of SOAP and WS-Addressing mappings poses a problem for the RDF community

srt: worries about the lack of articulation of the *business* value of RDF mappings

marsh: doesn't want to engage in the value or not of RDF and Semantic Web Technologies, but lack of support for RDF in Web service products must be of concern. But may be of value to a community, in which case they should do the work.

srt: we need greater assistance from the Semantic Web community to sell the value within our Working Groups

marsh: selling to WGs isn't going to be the best way forward, insufficient overlap between commercial and Semantic Web Services community

mnot: that goes to the nub of the point of my quote and my position at the SWS WS in Innsbruck
... calling them Semantic Web Services confuses our customers

srt: need to sell SWS to the WGs

marsh: disagree, this isn't top-down. common interest is on setting formats. Value proposition doesn't come from the W3C or articulated in WGs, it's the products which will articulate the value
... WGs are communies coming together around a technology. The communities around these specs are different. RDF isn't inherent to the WSDL community - it's an adjunct and doesn't fit in with the WSDL community

mnot: converse is true also, getting Semantic Web people to participate in Web services WGs is also difficult

srt: we should communicate to the Director the division between these communities

martin: doesn't disagree with what has been said, but isn't there a Charter being formed for SWS?

srt: it's only a proposed charter at this stage
... director and membership as a whole should solve this issue

mnot: SWS charter came out of the Workshop, now is a good time to provide feedback

mikem: what is they aim to do?

mnot: they're set to standardise OWL-S annotations for WSDL

(and WSMO :)

srt: conclusion seems to be there is a mis-match between the Web services and Semantic Web communities and there is evidence of failure
... concerns there is lack of resouce and support for Web service WGs to deliver Semantic Web related deliverables

<scribe> ACTION: srt to draft a note based upon this discussion to send to the Director [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/12/20-ws-cg-minutes.html#action04]

marsh: concerned about my deliverables in RDF, but it seems to be more generalised across Web services WGs. Could see how Addressing could be sucked in via extensibility

mnot: out of scope for the Addressing Charter, fwiw

Round Table

marsh: had long call with the Director for CR
... Features and Properties were discussed at length, including time-out to meet the protagonists, but heard nothing yet

mikem: XMLP still mulling over proposals in our solution space. Lack of AC votes on new charter is our biggest issue
... strange given we have renewed participation in the WG
... vote extended to Jan 20th

mnot: addressing closed our async issue, but now open to others including async in SOAP 1.2, hoping XMLP will solve this. SOAP 1.1 is likely to be a note
... interop workshop in January, aim to be in LC for the WSDL binding document soon after

srt: is there something you can reference for the async discussions

mnot: discussion has been long and difficult and unlikely to include the word "async"

srt: ws-chor needs something to reference
... whenever you're ready
... XMLCG? SWCG? SWIG?

[meeting closed]