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

RE: [fwd] Draft charters for work on Semantics for WS

From: Joel Farrell <joelf@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 16:24:53 -0500
To: "public-sws-ig@w3.org" <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFC527C3EB.5C6C299A-ON852570C1.00537A36-852570C7.0075A2D3@us.ibm.com>

One point of clarification.  There is a difference between the annotations
in WSDL-S and those in described in the of OWL-S WSDL grounding.  In WSDL-S
a modelReference or a SchemaMapping refer directly to a domain ontology.
The OWL-S WSDL extensions refer to parts of an OWL-S ontology, which in
turn can refer to a domain ontology.   Of course, WSDL-S could also be used
to point to OWL-S parameters and processes, so there is no conflict.  There
is only the question of how big this first step (in the WG) should be.

I have no objection to OWL-S being an input document.  The question we need
to ask is one of scope.  OWL-S, SWSF and WSMO all are based on having a
formal ontology for modeling Web services, beyond the implicit one embodied
in WSDL , so this will eventually be needed to achieve the full vision
which the other group W3C proposes will define.   If the scope includes
formally defining a service ontology, the WG will have to collectively
figure out the best way to do this.


One point of clarification. There is a difference between the annotations
in WSDL-S and those described in the OWL-S WSDL grounding. In WSDL-S a
modelReference or a SchemaMapping refers directly to a domain ontology. The
OWL-S WSDL extensions refer to parts of an OWL-S ontology, which in turn
can refer to a domain ontology. Of course, WSDL-S could also be used to
point to OWL-S parameters and processes, so there is no conflict. There is
only the question of how big this first step (in the WG) should be.


I have no objection to OWL-S being an input document. The question we need
to ask is one of scope. OWL-S, SWSF and WSMO all are based on having a
formal ontology for modeling Web services, so this will eventually be
needed to achieve the full vision which the other group W3C proposes will
define. If the WG scope includes formally defining a service ontology, the
WG will have to collectively figure out the best way to do this.


-- Joel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Battle, Steven Andrew <steve.battle@hp.com>
> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:28:11 -0000
> Message-ID: <DE62D3
D0BDEF184FBB5089C7D387C37449B3B0@sdcexc04.emea.cpqcorp.net>
> To: <public-sws-ig@w3.org>

> The WSDL-S team openly acknowledge the strong relationship between
> WSDL-S and OWL-S, so this should be clarified in the SAW working group
> charter, which currently recognises only once source of input. One can
> see the core elements of WSDL-S in the OWL-S submission. This identifies
> OWL-S extensions for WSDL message (owl-s-parameter), binding and
> operation (owl-s-process) definitions.
>
> The relevant sections of the OWL-S submission can be found in section
> 6.2
> http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-OWL-S-20041122#SECTION00062000000
> 000000000
>
> This proposal is exactly along the lines of the WSDL working group
> charter. I feel strongly that in the interests of clarity the sentence
> below in the charter should be revised:
>
> "A Member Submission, WSDL-S, related to this work, has been
> acknowledged by W3C and should be used as one input to the Working
> Group."
>
> To something like:
>
> "Member Submissions related to this work, WSDL-S and OWL-S (see
> 'Grounding OWL-S Services with WSDL and SOAP'), have been acknowledged
> by W3C and should be used as input to the Working Group."
>
> Steve Battle (Hewlett-Packard).
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-sws-ig-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-sws-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Carine Bournez
> > Sent: 15 November 2005 14:15
> > To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
> > Cc: www-ws@w3.org
> > Subject: [fwd] Draft charters for work on Semantics for WS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This is a copy of an announcement sent last week to the W3C
> > membership (on the member-ws@w3.org mailing list).
> > All comments welcome! (for non members, on the
> > public-sws-ig@w3.org mailing list). Thank you.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Following the announcement in [1], two charters have been drafted,
> > > corresponding to the two points previously described.
> > >
> > > The first one is a Semantics for Web Services
> > Characterization Group.
> > >
> > >    http://www.w3.org/2005/10/sws-charac-charter.html
> > >
> > > It specifically includes 4 issues to discuss.
> > >
> > > The second one is Semantic Annotations for WSDL Working Group.
> > >
> > >    http://www.w3.org/2005/10/sa-ws-charter.html
> > >
> > >
> > > Discussion on both these charters should happen on this
> > mailing list
> > > (member-ws@w3.org).
> > > Thank you!
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2005JulSep/0024.htm
> > > l
> > >
> >
> > ----- End forwarded message -----
> >
> > --
> > Carine Bournez -+- W3C Sophia-Antipolis
> >
> >
> >
>
> Joel A. Farrell
> STSM, IBM SWG Emerging Technology  (617) 693-5720
Received on Monday, 28 November 2005 21:25:22 GMT

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