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

RE: Where are the semantics in the semantic Web?

From: Shi, Xuan <xshi@GEO.WVU.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 15:32:50 -0500
Message-ID: <D81F456794C18B4DA3E2ABC47DBBEEF2094E46@onyx.geo.wvu.edu>
To: "'Drew McDermott '" <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, "'public-sws-ig@w3.org '" <public-sws-ig@w3.org>

My suggestion is that service description can be separated from service
development. Let's describe the service first. Supposed we have such a
service description:

<ServiceRequest>  
   <Service Name="SearchHotelInformation">    
      <Function Name="WebService.Hotel.SearchInformation">       
         <InputVariables>
            <CheckInDate></CheckInDate>
            <CheckOutDate></CheckOutDate>
            <NumberOfCustomer></NumberOfCustomer>
            <RoomType></RoomType>
         </InputVariables>    
      </Function>  
   </Service>
</ServiceRequest> 

it's then easy to develop such a Web service. 

If such service description can be a domain standard, then ALL hotel service
providers have to follow such standard to develop their Web services in any
way they want by reading this request document as their starting point to
process the request (the format of response should be standardized also).

The problem to your "interesting question" is if such developers do not
follow the standards since we can develop Web services in anyway we want,
then there may be no automated agent to communiate each other. This was
discussed as the most difficult level for interoperability in GIS community
since such people/organization just do not want to share.

If even we cannot reach such a simple domain specific agreement on service
description, how can we guess the semantics we generated in varied ways by
logic? Actually, the logic way may be just another standard and agreement
that enforces developers to follow on. If their actions are formulated
within the logical inference scope, then you can get an answer. However, how
can we process any sort of extra actions not within that scope? 

Considering that multiple Web services can perform exactly the same function
by different interfaces/approaches, since they should have the same service
semantics, adding semantic annotation onto WSDL may not be the right way
since the objects/elements in WSDL interfaces/documents are different. This
means the same service semantics will be described in different
terminologies. Is this the result we want to see? Or, service description
should be separated from any technology for service development?


-----Original Message-----
From: Drew McDermott
To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
Sent: 11/22/05 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: Where are the semantics in the semantic Web?



> [Shi, Xuan]

> However, if service semantics is developed based on standards and
> agreements, then everything is clear and we do not need logic for
> matchmaking.

Well, yes, but that takes all the fun out of it.  You seem to be
saying that human developers, given enough clear information about web
services, can write any desired program for interacting with web
services.  That's certainly true.  The more interesting question (to
me, anyway) is whether there is a point in "generality space" where it
pays people to describe web services formally enough that automated
agents can write the programs, or at least play a role in writing
them.  The descriptions would have to be written without detailed
knowledge of what program was going to be required, which seems to
indicate that the notation should be neutral and general-purpose.
Such notations tend to look like logic of some kind.

Of course, the answer to the "interesting question" may well be No.

                                             -- Drew

-- 

                                         -- Drew McDermott
                                            Yale University
                                            Computer Science Department
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2005 20:35:56 GMT

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