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

Re: Options we have with respect to the draft charters (i.e., RE: [fwd] Draft charters for work on Semantics for WS)

From: <Josh@oklieb>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 00:18:21 -0500
Message-Id: <C7294614-0FA0-499B-B4F5-DD18B1632D0D@oklieb.net>
Cc: "public-sws-ig@w3.org " <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
To: jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk


On Nov 19, 2005, at 4:30 PM, jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk wrote:

>
> Quoting David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>:
>
>
>> In these messages, the primary point
>> is simply this: since OWL-S proposed some of the same central  
>> approaches
>> as are in WSDL-S, why should it not also be considered as an input?
>>
>
> But why should it be considered as an input?
>
> What are the consequences of something being considered as an input?

Presumably the point of selecting an input is to determine some part  
of the output, assuming there is some understanding of the process '>)

>
> BTW, why is it said that "the current WSDL standard operates at the
> syntactic level"?  What is any more semantic about the things that
> are labelled "semantic"?

Interesting question. To a person well versed in Web Services, there  
is perhaps little difference. Semantic technology does not really  
focus, however, on what people understand (or perhaps it would be  
better understood by people) but on what machines can work with. From  
this perspective, there can be a huge difference in between what are  
termed syntactic and semantic descriptions.

In our geospatial semantic Web work, for example, we've had to work  
hard at avoiding either leaning on our private understanding of  
syntax or looking for some ultimate ontological truth, in favor of  
doing what leads to demonstrably more robust machine processing of  
geoinformation.

Josh Lieberman

>
>
>
Received on Monday, 21 November 2005 05:18:28 GMT

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