RE: remembering business data and taxonomy in description

At 01:17 PM 10/15/2002 -0700, Dave Hollander wrote:
>. . . Nor, as co-chair, am
>I willing to add debating this to the agenda prior to having
>the next draft out.

+1

We have enough on our plates right now.  Let's not open this issue yet.

>I do believe we will have to dig into ontologies and other
>discovery meta-data soon, just not right now.
>
>DaveH
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Booth [mailto:[email protected]]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1:56 PM
>To: Heather Kreger; [email protected]
>Subject: Re: remembering business data and taxonomy in description
>
>
>
>Heather,
>
>What you have described is formally called an "ontology":
>http://www.w3.org/2002/Talks/0813-semweb-dbooth/slide37-0.html
>
>Clearly, if we do define a WS ontology for this purpose, then either RDF or
>W3C's emerging Web Ontology Language (known as "OWL") should be used.  This
>will: (a) ensure maximum flexibility and re-use potential; and (b) ensure
>that the ontologies will always be cleanly extensible, without breaking
>existing software and without having to wait for a standards group to
>sanctify new "facts" or "rules" that people want to use.
>
>At 07:07 PM 10/11/2002 -0400, Heather Kreger wrote:
> >After the stack was accepted as a starting point at the face to face,
> >someone brought up the need for business description and taxonomy to
> >be described and associated with a service in a way that does not prescribe
> >that UDDI be used.
> >
> >We had initially thought that this may mean a new description layer for the
> >stack. But
> >this didn't feel right.
> >
> >However, I  have talked with some others about this
> >and would like to propose that this type of information is actually
> >'information about the
> >service'.  We had put other 'information about the service' in the policy
> >layer and I would
> >like to propose that this is where business and taxonomies should go as
> >well.
> >I believe that policies will contain 'facts' and 'rules'. Business data and
> >taxonomies
> >are facts.
> >Once we have a policy language (ws-policy), there will need to be groups
> >who define
> >standards 'sets' of policies to standardize keywords and concepts for
> >things like 'timeout', etc.
> >I think that some group will need to define a standard owning business
> >policy and
> >taxonomy policy.   I think that the UDDIEntry defined by the UDDI
> >specification
> >  provides an excellent set of starter data for such a group.
> >
> >Opinions?
>
>
>
>--
>David Booth
>W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
>Telephone: +1.617.253.1273

-- 
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273