W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sws-ig@w3.org > December 2004

Re: OWL-S Introduction

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 23:20:00 +0900
Message-Id: <BCB60504-5036-11D9-A46B-000D93C1F7A6@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
To: "Camara Melgosa, Javier" <JCAMARA@softwareag.es>

On Dec 17, 2004, at 11:07 PM, Camara Melgosa, Javier wrote:

>>> Maybe you can be interested in "A Formal Comparison between WSMO and
>>> OWL-S", in http://www.wsmo.org/2004/d4/d4.2/v0.1/
>>
>> What makes it formal?
> I do not know, but I did not put the title. I guess that more than 
> "formal"
> it could be termed "systematic".

Hmm. Comparing to examples (not use cases) doesn't quite seem 
systematic either. Whatever. It's a draft thing.

>> It doesn't seem done either.
> No, it has pending points and I guess the conclusions are outdated. It 
> is
> mainly a mapping of the OWL-S examples to WSMO.

Yep. Still, that can be useful.

> Is it my impression, or the collaboration between the OWL-S and the 
> WSMO
> teams is not as good as it could be?

There's no collaboration twixt the *teams*, that I know of. The OWL-S 
coalition should be sorta wrapping up at a some point while WSMO is 
just getting started.

That being said, there are of course points of contact. Indeed, at 
ISWC, there was a joint tutorial on WSMO and OWL-S that included a 
comparison session.

> Are there any concrete activities (e.g.
> at SWSI) to merge both initiatives in a single one?

SWSI is doing its own thing at the moment, though OWL-S and WSMO people 
are participating. There are intentions that the community pull it 
altogether at some point, but right now I think there's some (healthy) 
diversifying.

(OWL-S and WSMO and SWSI are no the only SWS efforts around!)

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.
Received on Friday, 17 December 2004 14:20:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 16 March 2008 00:10:59 GMT