W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sws-ig@w3.org > December 2003

Re: UDDI and semantics: CMU OWL-S/UDDI Mapping

From: Max Voskob <max.voskob@paradise.net.nz>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:29:30 +1300
To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
Message-id: <008d01c3b884$7f5cfc20$0200a8c0@johnson69biiow>
Re: UDDI and semantics: CMU OWL-S/UDDI MappingThat's exactly what I'm trying to find out!

It is not a big deal to add RDF/OWL/XTM or any other semantic data to UDDI entities. The issue here is the search. It is unlikely that UDDI will provide any reasoning in the nearest future given the early stage of development of the semantic technologies.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ugo Corda 
  To: public-sws-ig@w3.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, 2 December 2003 15:25
  Subject: Re: UDDI and semantics: CMU OWL-S/UDDI Mapping

  Hi Massimo, 

  > What we are trying to do at CMU (and in general with OWL-S) is to 
  > propose a way to add explicit semantic knowledge which can improve the 
  > languages and the tools that already exist.   This is basically the 
  > reason why we got into the trouble of basing the DAML-S matchmaker on 
  > top of UDDI and why OWL-S is based on WSDL. 

  As you mention above, and as it is explained in details in the research papers you mentioned before, you guys are taking the approach of building a front-end to UDDI, and do all the information mapping based on existing UDDI data structures. In particular, you don't seem to introduce any explicit RDF or OWL information in the repository. 

  Did you find this front-end approach sufficient? Or do you think that additions to the existing UDDI data structures intended to directly support RDF/OWL information would bring substantial benefits?

  Thank you, 
Received on Monday, 1 December 2003 22:26:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:54:11 UTC