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

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

From: Battle, Steven Andrew <steve.battle@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:27:59 -0000
Message-ID: <DE62D3D0BDEF184FBB5089C7D387C37455619C@sdcexc04.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Joel Farrell" <joelf@us.ibm.com>, <public-sws-ig@w3.org>

Thanks for the clarification. I agree this is indeed a persuasive
argument, and I believe it is one the working group should be able to
consider - I couldn't personally make a call either way without further
analysis. My only concern is that this kind of decision should not be
taken out of the hands of the working group and frozen into the charter.

On ontology matters. My feeling is that the ontology should be
_explicit_ so that the specification states exactly how the proposed
WSDL annotations extend the WSDL 2.0 RDF mapping.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-sws-ig-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-sws-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Joel Farrell
> Sent: 28 November 2005 21:25
> To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [fwd] Draft charters for work on Semantics for WS
> 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.
Received on Tuesday, 29 November 2005 12:28:20 UTC

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