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

Re: [OWL-S] Who does what?

From: Austin Tate <a.tate@ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:35:44 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: David Martin <martin@ai.sri.com>
Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org

At 22:17 17/12/2003 -0800, David Martin wrote:
>Yes, I understand and am sympathetic to this general approach.
>But I don't think it's really any different than what I had in mind when I 
>wrote (1) above.  After all, an OWL property instance with a value can be 
>thought of as a key=value pair, and OWL certainly provides a general, 
>extendable framework.  Further, I am certainly not advocating "lots" of 
>attributes; just the minimum number needed to get the job done. Finally, I 
>don't see that "perform activity actor" is any less "specialized" than the 
>OWL-S "participant" property, or any other property we may find that we 
>need to clarify "who does what".

I agree, its very similar... but there is a point to having ONE language 
independent conceptual underpinning... that of a set of activities that are 
constrained in arbitrary and extendible ways... it can be seen as providing 
a description of the space of legitimate behaviours without having a 
separate interpretation for each attribute of an object in a specific 
language.  But we can certainly then map "common" constraints and 
properties onto predefined attributes to get back all of what we want from 
OWL-S, etc.
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2003 06:39:50 UTC

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