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

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

From: Jeff Lansing <jeff@polexis.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:48:06 -0800
Message-ID: <3FCCEC76.2090901@polexis.com>
To: public-sws-ig@w3.org

Massimo Paolucci wrote:

> 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. 

Yes, but how would that work?

Given that UDDI is not going to do reasoning, and given that it is 
already possible to register taxonomies (including OWL ontologies) to 
associate services with categories (including with the entities and the 
properties in an OWL ontology), and to find the services for a category 
or the categories for a service, what more is there?

Or rather, what other benefit could there possibly be?


> --- 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 14:48:19 UTC

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