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

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

From: Katia Sycara <katia@cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:28:18 -0500
To: 'Max Voskob' <max.voskob@paradise.net.nz>, public-sws-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <003401c3b90a$70d64d10$d1bd0280@scs.ad.cs.cmu.edu>
Max and Ugo,

if I understand your question, you are asking for automated matching
mechanisms so that for example, if a (program) requester asks UDDI for
sellers of paper backs, then Amazon and Barnes and Noble and Borders and .
others will be automatically matched and returned. And the answer is Yes,
the CMU matchmaker does provide automated mechanisms for searching/matching.

  --Katia Sycara


-----Original Message-----
From: public-sws-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sws-ig-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Max Voskob
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 10:30 PM
To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: UDDI and semantics: CMU OWL-S/UDDI Mapping


That'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 <mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>  

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 Tuesday, 2 December 2003 14:28:33 UTC

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