WSMO Meeting Protocol, 13-Feb-04
WSMO minutes, 13-Feb-04
“Meeting Protocol”
1
WSMO Meeting Protocol, 13-Feb-04
Participants:
Christoph Bussler, Dieter Fensel, Sinuhé Arroyo, Jos de Bruijn , Emilia Cimpian, Ying Ding,
Uwe Keller, Rubén Lara, Adrian Mocan, Matthew Moran, Dumitru Roman, Michael Stollberg,
Michal Zaremba, Eyal Oren
Organizational Issues:
-
Meetings:
o Weekly on Thursday at 1pm Galway time resp. 2pm Innsbruck time. Duration:
around 3 hours, at a later stage around 2 hours.
o In principle, every member of the group should attend the meeting
o Next meeting: Thursday, 19-Feb-2004, 1pm Galway time resp. 2pm Innsbruck
time
-
Designation of two responsibles for WSMO Meeting video conferences:
o Galway: Eyal Oren, Innsbruck: Uwe Keller
o Responsibilities: Book rooms, make sure that the connection is ok and that
technicians are available, needed documents are accessible to everyone within
the group on time, collect the agenda items a day before, writing meeting
minutes
-
Discussion on standards, guidelines and tools to be used for WSMO deliverables:
o Access to documents should be better
o General guideline: W3C style for all deliverables required. Deliverable editors
and authors should get familiar with the style guidelines of W3C. Look at:
http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/.
o All deliverables in HTML format and PDF format
o Which HTML (HTML 4 Transition vs. XHTML) dialect will be clarified in a phone
conference by Jos, Titi, Michal until next week.
o Everyone can use his preferred tool, but has to ensure conformance to the
required HTML dialect and W3C styles guidelines.
o Versioning tool: CVS
Everyone who has no account so far, please contact Holger Lausen
o Framemaker will be tested by Eyal. Benefits: Configurable HTML export. This
hopefully avoids the tedious task of coding HTML and change logs for
documents are visible.
 Howto see differences between versions (we don’t want to see HTML
differences)
 Frontpage and Word make dirty HTML
o
o
o
o
Additional communication means for meetings:
(1) Chat: Either we will use the tool by Geri
(http://www.nextwebgeneration.com/chat.html) or an IM Chat Client of your
choice. Decision will be made before the next meeting by Uwe and Eyal.
(2) Shared desktop computer (for meeting minutes)
All document (in reasonable status) should be available at the website. Latest
(non-public) versions will always be checked into CVS repository.
A version of a document to be discussed in the meeting should be available for
all members of the group at least 7 days before the meeting. The new version
should be explicitly announced (possibly automatically by CVS -> Axel)
All documents should mention only real editors (not alphabetical, pref. max 2),
in acknowledgement mention the group & the funding.
2
WSMO Meeting Protocol, 13-Feb-04
-
Website
o Editors are responsible for their deliverables
o Confirmation for file upload of deliverables needed (by technical committee
(Chris, ?))
o Overall responsible: Titi
o Problem: Currently, no suitable authorization management for the web site
(Webserver at IFI)
o Dieter and the technicians in Innsbruck will find a solution until the next
meeting.
-
WSMO and SDK:
o By end of the month, the WSMO workgroup will become a SDK-Cluster
workgroup. Participants from all SDK-Cluster-Projects are invited to join the
workgroup
o For each deliverable there will be at least one editor (but not more than 2
editors) who are responsible for the deliverable They will be explicitly
mentioned in the deliverable. Additionally, there will be a number of authors
contributing to the deliverable. They will only be explicitly mentioned in the
deliverable, if there are not too much of them.
o The order of editors/authors that are mentioned in the deliverable should reflect
their workload and commitment. (In monotonically decreasing order)
o Decision process within the workgroup: editors and chairs make decision
(editors on behalf of the chairs). No majority necessary.
o We apply a well-defined and explicit policy for requests by new people to join
the working group:
Everyone who is interested in joining the working group has to send a CV and a
short rationale (why they want to join) to Chris or Dieter. They will decide about
actually inviting the candidate.
o
o
-
Titi will put the explicit description of the process on the website
For the subscription to the eMail-list we proceed similarly: A request for
subscription will be forwarded to Chris and Dieter. They actually decide on the
subscription.
Members of the group have to attend the meetings personally on a regular
basis. Otherwise they will be invited to leave the working group.
WSMO and Publications
o No quick shots anymore: Quick and dirty papers on WSMO without substantial
content are not allowed any longer, because they hamper the progress of the
project.
o Dieter: write papers about stuff you did (case study) and refer properly to
WSMO. No paper that explains WSMO only without authorization Dieter/Chris.
o When using material out of WSMO in publications:
 Reference to WSMO has to be clearly stated and explicitly be included.
(The editors of the deliverables don’t need to be mentioned as coauthors)
 When using material of any deliverables (except D2 Ontology): Point
out that this represents only a single aspect of WSMO.
3
WSMO Meeting Protocol, 13-Feb-04

o
o
D2 related publications: Dieter and Christ have to approve them
explicitly!
Dieter: D2 will become a W3C recommendation, so we must be careful about
what to publish about it. All other deliverables should be published by
authors/editors, about aspect/relation of/with WSMO.
Chris: we maybe want to explain WSMO decision process (as technical report)
to anticipate questions / We should have a document that gives rational for
our design decisions (why happen things to be as they are)
-
We need a native speaking proof-reader
o Chris will check the situation in Galway (perhaps Ina)
o Dieter: additional payment by Innsbruck no problem
-
WSMO and IRS-II:
o Laurentiu & Dumitru  IRS-II (http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/irs/) invite them,
look at code, perform experiments, upgrade IRS-II to WSMO
o Reporting on bi-weekly basis
WSMO Deliverables:
o
General: Editors add version number to all deliverables
o
D1
o
o
o
Special URL for webpage of WSMO project would be nice
Jos, Titi and Michael Stollberg will look for such a URL
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
D2-example will disappear, subsumed by primer
pdf version
fig. 2 red underlining 'lite'
jos  will include explicit reference to dublin core, not only informally
(bibliography reference) (e.g. link to namespace)
sec 4.4: attribute definition missing. in 4.1 you define attributeRange, in 4.4 you
should define attributeValue.
sec 6: we define wwMediator, but never use it.
upper/lower case consistent (GG-Mediator)
delete capability as subClass of goal
webService has only ooMediator
capability ooMediator & wgMediator
o
o
o
o
o
incorporate this changes -> v0.1 and close this version
make URL d2v0.1-dd-mm-yy etc.
next version 0.2
Chris: Discussion of this deliverable should be example driven in the future.
Dieter: Agreed, as soon as D3 is delivered.
o
WSMO-Primer will be discussed next week
D2:
o
o
D3:
4
WSMO Meeting Protocol, 13-Feb-04
o
o
o
o
o
o
Perhaps on Monday an updated version of the primer by Michael.
New D's: 3.1 primer, 3.2 use case; on both at least 1 galway person
Chris  will look at who in galway can be co-editor, co-author for deliverables
o
o
o
o
There has to be a stable version of WSMO first (Version 0.1)
Chris: Justification for comparision is needed: Why do we compare what?
Ruben: make comparison by use case.
now we have 0.1, so we can compare.
o
o
o
o
o
Proof obligations have to be understood first: What do we have to proof with the
reasoner
We start with: Capabilites of WS match a goal
Dieter: show me capability matching, make a reasoner on primer
Chris: Livelock freeness, Deadlock freeness.
First version should be delivered in 6 days
o
Update of current activity sheet with real editors and co-authors:
D4:
D5:
D6:
Everyone who is interested in the participation in any deliverable should write
an eMail to Jos.
Editors D1: Titi, Editors D2: Holger, Titi, Uwe, D5: Uwe, D6: Dieter, D8: Uwe,
Jos
Split deliverable 3: New deliverables 3.1: Primer and 3.2 Use-case
New deliverable 11: WSMO-Lite
Version-Numbers between deliverables and activity sheets are inconsistent ->
Add version number explicitly to document in deliverables.
o
o
D7: finished
D8:
o analysis/comparison of logic formalisms wrt WSMO
o Goal: Which language should we use to model semantics (outcome is an
interpretation)
o
o
D9, D10: too early
D11: Chris will check the Galway-side
Talks & Paper presentations:
o
o
o
o
UDDI related documents (UDDI & Semantics): Summary by Matt (Galway) next
week, presentation in two weeks.
Axel will talk on “BPEL4WS for the Semantic Web” next week
Adrian will give a presentation on “Semantic Markup for Semantic Web Tools”
next week.
Assignment of new topics: Should be prepared as soon as possible.
5
WSMO Meeting Protocol, 13-Feb-04
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
WS-Architecture: Michael Stollberg
WS-Architecture Usage: Michal
WS-Glossary: Holger (explicit notification!) (or Emilia ?)
WS-Management Life Cyle: Adhoc discussion (everybody)
WS-Architectiure Requirements: Eyal
Technical Report: dynamic service composition. Univ. of Maryland: Titi
SWS Language Requirements: Emilia
Phoneconference/WSMO-Lite
Issue: What subset of WSMO represents WSMO ?
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Non functional properties: keep only title/identifier
Ontologies: No axioms within concept “Concept”, delete also usedMediators.
Goals: do we need them (resp. Goal = Capability in WSMO-Lite) ? No agreement
(Discussion next week).
Mediators: no mediators, only import
Web services: no mediators, non-functional properties in simplified version as before
o capabilities: no import, use one from web services
o keep assumptions/effects? No agreement
o interfaces: keep only (nonfunctional: identifier/title), errors, messageExchange
groundings: keep
Language: need use cases for this first; probably need to restrict expressiveness.
Dumitru & Holger  WSMO Lite v0.01 on Monday, next week v0.2, XML, RDF
Other issues
o
About the subsumption relation: is rectangle SB square, or square SB rectangle.
Chris: is this modeling decision or enforced by language. Unfinished discussion.
Has to be clarified.
6
WSMO Meeting Protocol, 13-Feb-04
Papers presentation:
- Titi: D. Wu et al.: Automating DAML-S Web Service Composition Using SHOP2
- Axel (postponed) D. J. Mandell and S. McIlraith: Adapting BPEL4WS for the Semantic
Web: The Bottom-UP Approach to Web Service Interoperation
- Emilia: E. Motta et al.: IRS-II: A Framework and Infrastructure for Semantic Web
Services
7