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

Re: UDDI and semantics

From: Max Voskob <max.voskob@paradise.net.nz>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 11:03:56 +1300
Message-ID: <006c01c3aee9$070b7430$6504a8c0@msis491smqmuhm>
To: "www-sws-ig" <public-sws-ig@w3.org>

OK, this is another part of the problem.

Lets say that every UDDI entity has an RDF description attached as "RDF bag"
There is also some search API.

Should it be template or query based?
What's available at this stage for RDF?

What about those reasoning engines?
UDDI is not expeted to provide reasonong services at this stage.

Assume that the RDF bag contains a mix of RDF and OWL statements describing
a web service.
A client may run a search using a standard registry API on the predefined
search criteria.
Another client may use a reasoning engine (RE) and a relevant ontology to
find that service. Consider the following scenarios:

1. A client invokes a RE, provides search criteria and the RE queries the
registry (trying multiple different queries, I guess)
2. A client calls a RE to find out what queries might be relevant/equivalent
to these search criteria and then queries the registry (again, trying
multiple different queries)

The issue here is the performance drawback due to the multiple queries to
the registry.

Solutions that come to my mind:

1. the RE holds an index of all RDF bags from a particular registry and does
all the querying and matching internally
2. the RDF querying mechanism allows for borader term querying. E.g. the RE
figures out what terms/combinations of terms it may want to look for and
specifies them all in one query. Is it going to be prohibitively expensive
for the registry to handle them?

Any ideas?

Just a little disclaimer - I'm not an expert in semantics, RDF, OWL, etc, so
if what I say here does not really make sense, plese, feel free to say so.

Any comments are welcome.

Max Voskob

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Lansing" <jeff@polexis.com>
To: "Max Voskob" <max.voskob@paradise.net.nz>
Cc: "www-sws-ig" <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 6:13 AM
Subject: Re: UDDI and semantics

> Max,
> This feels like it would be something useful, and even more so if  it
> were possible to search on the RDF statements.
> Jeff
> Max Voskob wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >UDDI TC is considering RDF to inlude semantic descriptions with UDDI
> >entities.
> >This proposal is at an early stage, but I'd like to start a wider
> >on this option because it intersects with the general dicsussion on use
> >semantics with WS.
> >I hope this mailing list is the right place to get the bigger picture of
> >what we are trying to do.
> >
> >The idea is to include RDF statements as part of an UDDI entity so that
> >statements can be linked to some external taxonomies or ontologies (see
> >attached diagram).
> >
> >
> >In this case the role of UDDI does not include reasoning or parsing the
> >taxonomy - it provides purely registery and discovery services.
> >
> >Your comments and ideas are very welcome.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Max Voskob
> >member of UDDI TC
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2003 17:05:22 UTC

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