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

Re: Comments on WSDL-S abstract

From: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 14:30:59 -0500
Message-ID: <17279.32115.465042.377457@DVM-Powerbook.local>
To: public-sws-ig@w3c.org



> [WSDL-S document]
> > Second, by externalizing the semantic domain models, we take an
> > agnostic approach to ontology representation languages. This allows
> > Web service developers to annotate their Web services with their
> > choice of ontology language (such as UML or OWL) unlike in OWL-S.
> 
> [David Martin]
 [...]
> ... it is somewhat misleading to suggest that OWL-S
> somehow precludes the use of other semantic models.  

I'm puzzled by this, too.  Although the overall syntactic framework
for OWL-S is RDF, any time the representational going gets tough we
allow any notation to be used.  For instance, it looks like WSDL-S and
OWL-S have about the same thing to say about representing
preconditions and effects, to wit: use your favorite notation.  As
David points out (rearranging the order of his message):

> ... it can be an
> advantage, for some purposes, to have the flexibility to refer to a
> variety of semantic specifications.  For other purposes, however, this
> could be viewed as a distinct *disadvantage*.  For example, for Web
> service tool vendors who need to know what semantic models they need to
> support, it is distinctly unhelpful to stipulate that "anything goes".

I imagine that in practice software tools will support only one, maybe
two, notations, and eventually one will become the standard while the
others wither away.

                                             -- Drew


-- 

                                         -- Drew McDermott
                                            Yale University
                                            Computer Science Department
Received on Saturday, 19 November 2005 19:33:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 16 March 2008 00:11:02 GMT