W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > October 2006

Re: Commercial/Real-world Semantic Web Services?

From: Xuan Shi <Xuan.Shi@mail.wvu.edu>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 23:53:01 -0400
Message-Id: <452AE0DD0200003D00001E49@WVUGW01.wvu.edu>
To: "Minsu Jang" <minsu.jang@gmail.com>, "Ed Addison" <ed@teradisc.org>
Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>, <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, <public-sws-ig@w3.org>

I agree, semantic Web services (SWS) and this IG have nothing to boast,
as I indicated in

By examining W3C documentation "Web Services Architecture" again @
http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-arch/ we can see why SWS failed and had
little accomplishment and progress in the past years.

How to realize and implement (semantic) Web services? W3C said clearly:
"the requester and provider entities must agree on the semantics and the
service description that will govern the interaction between the
requester and provider agents, but it would be more accurate to say that
they simply need to have a congruent or non-conflicting view of the
semantics and service description of the interaction." 

(Semantic) Web Services Architecture has to be based on "agreement" -
if anyone in this SWS-IG would like to read this document again, just
count the number of the repeated word "agree" used in this W3C

However, the leading roles of this IG believed that NOBODY wants to
agree with each other, as every developer or service provider has the
absolute right to do what s/he wants to do. For this reason, they have
to use varied kind of logical modeling to guess which one might be
similar to the others, by referencing each individual annotated semantic
definition to a super-ontology. 

Unfortunately, ontology, again by definition, is a shared, common
conceptualization of a domain knowledge (or again a kind of
agreement/standard). Then we see, those who CANNOT reach an "agreement"
have to "share" a super-ontology. This means, after turning around and
around through modeling, we return to the starting point - we have to
"agree" something first. But the problem is, referencing to a
super-ontology promotes the dissemination of individual "semantic"
definition on varied service and interface, and this means such people
just do NOT use that "shared" ontology of a domain of the service. 

Why people do NOT use that "shared" super-ontology of a domain of the
service, in case there is such a super-ontology? Because they thought
standard/agreement-based SWS "takes all the fun out of it", although
they knew "That's certainly true" - "given enough clear information
about web services", we can write any desired program for interacting
with web services, because we reach an agreement first, then those
artificially designed "agents" know what and how to do with little fun.



>>> "Ed Addison" <ed@teradisc.org> 10/9/2006 1:13 PM >>>
I would suggest that those commercial applications that use semantic
web, or
semantic web-like technology would not necessarily advertise that
what they are doing.  The semantic web is a tool, not a product or
SInce the semantic web is in its infancy, commercial applications that
use semantic web technology most likely use a significantly scoped
subset of it.  The semantic web is more likely to slowly infiltrate
information products and web services rather than suddenly get
adoption.  Might be tough to find or even classify the cases for your
study.  Good luck.

On 10/8/06, Minsu Jang <minsu.jang@gmail.com> wrote:
> Deal all,
> I'm doing a case study on commercial or real-world semantic web
> I've done a significant amount of searches on google, but could not
> any evidence of semantic web services deployed for real-world
> Could anybody shed some light on me of where the semantic web
> in the real world is going? Any URLs or references would be greatly
> appreciated.
> Best Regards,
> zebehn
> PS: i'm sorry for cross-posting.


Ed Addison

.......Think Big !!
Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2006 03:53:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:28 UTC