See also: IRC log
<Amit> I just managed to get the report on-line which could provide some input for follow on activity or separate activity
<Amit> the URL is http://knoesis.cs.wright.edu/library/publications/download/SWSChallenge-TR-METEOR-S-Feb2007.pdf
<Amit> here is another thing of possible interest to group: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/swsc/charter
minutes of last telcon approved
<scribe> ACTION: Eric to upgrade the SPDL page for SAWSDL readers and then work things out with the Usage Guide [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20070306#action01]
JacekK: we talked about preconditions and effects, either hooks or actual language and model
AmitSheth: it seems that prominent members of the SW community want to see a comprehensive discussion of SWS
... it's a lot of work, consensus could be difficult, unless we constrain the focus
... if we can create or adopt something in preconditions and effects, that would be OK
... for a bigger project, Incubator might be the right place
JacekK: we also talked about the workshop, but a quicker direct suggestion from us would be welcome by the W3C
AmitSheth: there's the SWS challenge work, also with involvement from DERI
... in our solutions, we have used SAWSDL and an incremental approach for adding semantics, but I can't say that we have a complete solution
Joel: ability to specify precondition and effects seems like the next thing; possibly a framework with multiple embodiments?
... something short of full language?
Dieter Fensel from DERI Innsbruck
Dieter: compliments on progress so far
... WS-Policy (Dieter and Amit had discussed at Dagstuhl)
... Framework for SWS workshop could organize next meeting, as an alternative to W3C organizing the workshop
... sws-tb (semantic Web Service Testbed) is launched
... Workshop could be aligned with incubator
... a step to do between SAWSDL and SWS full language
... small ontology that captures key compoenent of SWS, including precondition, effects, etc
Joel: doing ontology might not be bad idea
JacekK: some of these things sound researchy
AmitSheth: the incubator could come back to our WG (or another) with proposal in as little as 6 months
... regarding policy, we could have something very similar to SAWSDL, very achievable
... an initial submission would take up to 3 months
... semantic policy description is achievable
Dieter: also sees similarly
... WSMO is completely language neutral, defines pragmatics
... language issue: what about we use RDF?
Amit: seems like a great idea
Dieter/Amit: Incubator to investigate and explore; working group to take up recommendation
JacekK: W3C process involves AC approval
... need to avoid open scope
Dieter: need not keep working group agenda blank, can include next step items
Amit: I do not see there is a need for a formal link, but we can have cooperative link
JacekK: will summarize
... could propose middle way (hooks) for precondition, effects
... possibly next W3C workshop
... contact with incubator a good idea; if idea transfer is possible/viable
Dieter: start discussion with OWL-S on common ontology of SWS concepts
... could first agree on language-independent version, then put it down in RDF
JacekK: encourage others to chime in
<JacekK> ACTION: JacekK to send a summary of today's discussion about the future of the group [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20070306#action02]
JacekK: WSDL wg decided to keep operation safety annotation as is
... would anybody like us to talk about an alternative to that?
rather not
JacekK: we mostly decided last week to drop propagation of interface annotations
Ajith: double edge sword, safest option is to drop propagation
JacekK: advocates drop propagation
RESOLUTION: CR issue 8: we will drop interface annotation propagation
JacekK: close CR issue 6 as we decided last week
RESOLUTION: CR issue 6: closed with previous resolution
Next week +1 hours for US