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

Is there any logical conflict between the semantics in SW and tha t in SWS ?

From: Shi, Xuan <xshi@GEO.WVU.edu>
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 17:04:55 -0500
Message-ID: <D81F456794C18B4DA3E2ABC47DBBEEF2094E54@onyx.geo.wvu.edu>
To: "Shi, Xuan" <xshi@GEO.WVU.edu>, "''Joachim Peer ' '" <joachim.peer@unisg.ch>, "''jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk ' '" <jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: "''Harry Halpin ' '" <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, "''public-sws-ig@w3.org ' '" <public-sws-ig@w3.org>, "'hendler@cs.umd.edu'" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "'drew.mcdermott@yale.edu'" <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, "'bparsia@isr.umd.edu'" <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>

I would like to see if Drs. Hendler, McDermott, Parsia or anyone in this
group could explain the logical conflicts as I mentioned in this thread.
Thanks very much in advance. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Shi, Xuan
To: 'Joachim Peer '; 'jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk '
Cc: 'Harry Halpin '; 'public-sws-ig@w3.org '
Sent: 11/25/05 2:17 PM
Subject: RE: Where are the semantics in the semantic Web?
Importance: High

When Tim Berners-Lee defined the semantic Web, the word "semantic" meant
"machine processable".  Now that Web services are designed for
"machine-processable", WSDL is criticized as not "semantic". The word
"semantic" in Semantic Web Services seems different from that in

If Tim Berners-Lee's definition is still effective, we can understand
XML and RDF/OWL are machine-processible. Which way we should go? Still
an issue of agreement and standardization, otherwise, we have to
our debate. Especially according to Tim Berners-Lee's definition, WSDL
machine-processible then why should we again add "semantics" onto such
machine-processible (thus "semantic") WSDL document? Or we are talking
something different in the domains of SW and SWS?

-----Original Message-----
From: Joachim Peer
To: jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk
Cc: Harry Halpin; public-sws-ig@w3.org
Sent: 11/25/05 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: Where are the semantics in the semantic Web?

dear all,

i've followed this thread with great interest. i have tried to summarize
some technical (pro XML) arguments in a little paper which is attached
to this mail

kind regards!

Received on Saturday, 26 November 2005 22:04:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:54:15 UTC