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: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:22:02 -0800
Message-ID: <1DB6146221612E44BC62157D102A222F0102467F@polexis-vat.polexis.com>
To: "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
One semantic addition to UDDI that I can think of (but I don't yet see
how to really make it work) would be to provide the ability to describe
the semantics of the associations that are created by adding categories
to a service. 
 
In a bit more detail: 
I have a taxonomy of things registered in UDDI, and I have a service.
I register my service, adding a category from my taxonomy to the service
(to its category bag).
This creates an association between my service, and a category of my
taxonomy.
But what association is that? Is it an ISA link? Is it "is instance of"?
"Is it "is provider of"?
It would be nice to know.
 
Jeff

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Ugo Corda 
	Sent: Tue 12/2/2003 6:07 PM 
	To: public-sws-ig@w3.org 
	Cc: 
	Subject: 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 


Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2003 13:23:27 GMT

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