Re: Web service in WSDL vs. "service" in OWL-S

Carine,

By W3C definition listed below, a Web service has "an interface
described in a machine-processable format (specifically WSDL). " Here we
see, WSDL is a machine-processable format. But SWS people keep saying
WSDL only describes a syntactic interface, not *semantic*.

Many times SW people said something is not *semantic* because it is not
machine-processable or readable, but such a saying seems as another
trick, because W3C said WSDL is machine-processable, then why we still
want to add "semantics" onto such a machine-processable format? We may
talk about "semantics" in SWS with little consideration on what are the
semantics in semantic Web services.

Could you please tell us then, what's the relation between a
"machine-processable format" vs. semantics? You see, if something is not
"machine-processable", it is not semantic. If something is
"machine-processable", however, it is still not semantic. Then what are
people talking about "semantics" in this IG?

Regards,

Xuan




>>> "Xuan Shi" <Xuan.Shi@mail.wvu.edu> 08/01/06 9:19 AM >>>

Carine,

W3C said @ http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/NOTE-ws-gloss-20040211/

"Web service
There are many things that might be called "Web services" in the world
at large. However, for the purpose of this Working Group and this
architecture, and without prejudice toward other definitions, we will
use the following definition:

A Web service is a software system designed to support interoperable
machine-to-machine interaction over a network. It has an interface
described in a machine-processable format (specifically WSDL). Other
systems interact with the Web service in a manner prescribed by its
description using SOAP-messages, typically conveyed using HTTP with an
XML serialization in conjunction with other Web-related standards."

As for "WSDL-based service", I just want to STRESS on W3C terminology of
"Web services" - they should _specifically_ have a WSDL interface, other
than Web interface, you see W3C already emphasized such limitation in
2004 - "There are many things that might be called "Web services" in the
world at large.", like OWL-S people - they are talking about *Web
sites*, not WSDL. I hope OWL-S people can give us a definite explanation
why they do not follow W3C specification but keep changing and
transforming the concepts.

Regards,

Xuan



>>> Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org> 08/01/06 4:35 AM >>>
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 12:08:03AM -0400, Xuan Shi wrote:
> 
> If W3C and this SWS-IG try to define service semantics for WSDL-based
> service, other than Web-site based service, people have to re-examine
> the suitability of OWL-S for SWS because OWL-S targets at a wrong
object
> (Web site) other than Web service defined by W3C. 

Now stop that FUD. This Interest Group is not trying to define semantics
for "WSDL-based service". The term  "WSDL-based" is a complete non-sense
and you misread (once again) the definition of the WS Arch Note.
Opposing "WSDL-based" and "web-based" is of course as non-sensical as
opposing REST and WSDL.

Of course I will not answer any of your questions, the troll is over
(at least for me, it's up to other contributors to decide if they want
to lose their time).


-- 
Carine Bournez -+- W3C Europe

Received on Tuesday, 1 August 2006 13:56:16 UTC