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

> Message-ID: <3FCCEC76.2090901@polexis.com>
> Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:48:06 -0800
> From: Jeff Lansing <jeff@polexis.com>
> To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: UDDI and semantics: CMU OWL-S/UDDI Mapping
>
>
> 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?
>
> Jeff

Yes, that's the question I am asking myself.

Let me try to turn around my original question and see if we can get a better understanding of the issue. The paper "Importing the Semantic Web in UDDI" describes the mapping of the DAML-S Profile to UDDI data structures. From the diagram in Fig. 5, it seems that most of the Profile information is simply mapped to existing UDDI structures, so that what is already available in UDDI is sufficient for a faithful mapping. 

So a question could be: are there other elements of the DAML-S Profile (not shown in that picture) that currently do not easily map and that would benefit from the creation of new data structures in UDDI? Alternatively, is it useful to come up with a more complex Profile that, while currently difficult to map, would easily map with the addition of new data structures to UDDI and would provide more reasoning power?

Ugo