W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sws-ig@w3.org > May 2005

OWL-S

From: <34omair@niit.edu.pk>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 00:58:33 +0500 (PKT)
Message-ID: <1864.10.10.21.7.1116619113.squirrel@mail.niit.edu.pk>
To: public-sws-ig@w3.org

Hello all,

I am highly interested in contributing to Semantic Grid goals, especially
OWL-S.

Just to introduce myself, my recent research contribution is dynamic and
seamless integration of Software Agents in FIPA Multi Agent Systems and
W3C Web Services.

I want to get involved in core Semantic Grid issues e.g. OWL-S. I want to
propose and prove some enhancements in OWL-S based on my experience in
Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems. This mail group seams very
relevant to discuss regarding this.

I have studied the latest release of OWL-S, "OWL-S: Semantic Markup of Web
Services" (1.1).

They have basically tried to build general purpose ontology but again this
doesn’t seem very promising to me. They have specified some fixed set of
description of a service (but in more detail than that of WSDL).

I have some questions related to it.

1) Would OWL-S replace WSDL?

2) Would ordinary Web Service Clients be able to do dynamic invocation,
discovery, composition, execution monitoring etc of Web Services using
OWL-S

3) Does all goals of OWL-S i.e. invocation, discovery, composition,
execution monitoring etc of Web Services are focusing on
enhancements/replacement of just the Service Description Language or
anything else as well?

4) Dynamic invocation, discovery, composition etc. is understandable but
what does execution/execution monitoring actually means?

Again, I highly appreciate the efforts of the people regarding OWL-S.

Best Regards,
M. Omair Shafiq
Research & Technical Assistant
Semantic Grid & Multi Agent Systems Research Group (http://asg.niit.edu.pk)
NUST Institute of Information Technology (NIIT) (www.niit.edu.pk)
National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST) (www.nust.edu.pk)
166-A, St # 9, Chaklala Scheme 3 Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Cell: +92-333-6388090

--------------------
Daniel Elenius said:
>
> How about...
>
> 1) Changing the name of SimpleProcess to AbstractProcess
> 2) Removing the expandsTo property
> 3) Changing the range of realizedBy to Process
>
> Is there any credible scenario where we want to have one atomic and one
> composite process linked to the same simple (abstract) process?
>
> Why does it matter that they are composite/atomic?
>
> My suggestion means there could be different degrees of abstract-ness,
> as an AbstractProcess can be (partly) realizedBy another
> AbstractProcess. The concrete process in the end of the chain (if any)
> can be either atomic or composite.
>
> Daniel
Received on Saturday, 21 May 2005 05:08:19 UTC

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