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

Re: Relation between OWL and OWL-S

From: Massimo Paolucci <paolucci@cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:26:26 -0500
Message-ID: <41AB3FA2.6030007@cs.cmu.edu>
To: daniela.claro@eseo.fr
CC: public-sws-ig@w3.org


Daniela CLARO wrote:

>Hi all, 
> I would like to know what is actually the relation between OWL-S and OWL?
This is quite a difficult question.  The problem is that while OWL-S is 
based on OWL,  really much of its semantics is outside OWL.  For 
example, the execution semantics for the OWL-S Process Model are defined 
in logics that are beyond OWL and there are papers that point out 
problems at using OWL inference engines to do discovery using the OWL-S 

>How do I represent this relation in OWL-S? 
>I will be more clear...for example, suppose that I have a service called
>AirplaneCompany that searches for a ticket beased on some input parameters
>and it belongs to a service composition called Travel. 
>- How can I do automatic discovery in this case? I've read that the
>automatic discovery in OWL-S is based on its input and outputs parameters,
>so we can make a distinction between the services. 
 I am not quite sure what is your question here

1. what do you mean when you say that "AirplaneCompany ... belongs to a 
service composition called Travel"?    To be discoverable 
AirplaneCompany should be exposed as a service on its own.  The fact 
that it is also used in a composition called Travel is meaningless.

2.  The idea of using inputs and outputs during discovery was an initial 
proposal toward a discovery mechanism for OWL-S that was put forward by 
the CMU group.  This is not the only way to do discovery with OWL-S,  
nor it has been prescribed by the OWL-S coalition.

>But actually, how can I say that my AirplaneCompany service is a class in
>OWL model? Where Can I put this relation in OWL-S? And also, where can I say
>that AirplaneCompany is the same service that AircraftCompany, as we do in
>OWL using equivalenceClass like:
><owl:Class rdf:ID="Aircraft">
>    <owl:equivalentClass rdf:resource="urn:eg#AirPlane"/>
>These relations exist? Or in OWL-S we can not say that? 
Since OWL-S is based on OWL, you can always use owl:equivalentClass or 
any other OWL construct.  In addition, the OWL-S discovery mechanisms 
may be able to recognize that similarity automatically without 
explicitly stating it.

--- Massimo


On a fun linguistic note... ;-)

Drew McDermott wrote:

>By the way, the banks you sit on are only banks in
Nope, benches in Italian are "panche" and banks (as financial 
institutions) are "banche": very different!

> in English they are "benches," which comes from the Italian,
>but conveniently changed spelling, thus eliminating the confusion. 
Really?  thousands of linguists spent their entire carrier trying to 
figure out how to solve this confusion.

> To
>compensate, the earthen walls of rivers are called "banks," so if we
>have a web service selling tours of river margins, the confusion is
of course in Italian river banks are "argini" so you would not have an 
ambiguity either ;-)
Received on Monday, 29 November 2004 15:26:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:54:14 UTC