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

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

From: Massimo Paolucci <paolucci@cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:35:21 -0500
Message-ID: <3FCCE979.1020603@cs.cmu.edu>
To: public-sws-ig@w3.org

Ooops,  I sent the message to early, 

Anyway all I want to say is that depending on what the UDDI folks what 
to achieve OWL may help by adding a richer representation and the logic 
inference that comes with it.  In general, I think that the search 
facilities and the functions that allow users to retrieve Web services 
would benefit from  OWL.

--- Massimo


Massimo Paolucci wrote:

>
> Ugo,
>
> Ugo Corda wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
> Unfortunately, I do not have a good answer, and I will have to think 
> about your question some more.  We took UDDI as a done deal, and we 
> tried to fit DAML-S into it, instead of redoing UDDI.  Two places 
> where some semantic annotation may help are the tModels and the 
> category bag,  which seem to be the main ways to retrieve information 
> from the repository.   For other objects it all depends on what 
> questions UDDI users may want to ask.  For example consider the 
> binding,  if the goal is just to save binding information and retrieve 
> it then using OWL may not add anything, but if the goal is to be able 
> to ask which web services use a binding compatible with HTTP 
> constrained by some security parameters,  then WLthere may be a case 
> for O
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2003 14:36:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 16 March 2008 00:10:53 GMT