RE: W3C and SWS

For all those interested in SWS, one constructive way to proceed is to take
a look at www.semwebcentral.org <http://www.semwebcentral.org/>   where
software tools can be downloaded for constructing semantic web services. In
particular, there are tools for authoring and editing OWL-S profile, process
model and grounding (e.g. the OWL-S editor from SRI) and also the Integrated
Development Environment from Carnegie Mellon University that supports SWS
developers in creating and editing (via the CMU OWL-S editor), matching
(through the OWL-S/UDDI matchmaker) and invoking (via the OWL-S Virtual
machine). 

 

There is also the OWL-S-MX matchmaking tool, OWL-P for protocols, and many
other tools (I am not trying to be exhaustive here). There are also many
ontologies. I am sure WSMO has tools that can also be used. 

 

In other words, people are not only discussing in papers about what a SWS
should have but have proceeded with creating tools to support the integrated
enactment of sws from authoring to invocation. 

 

We (CMU and other people who have developed tools and put them out there to
be used) would appreciate their use by the community for various
applications. We also appreciate the constructive feedback based on the
experience of using the tools. 

 

As Charlie said, these things take time, effort and constructive
cooperation. 

 

Katia Sycara

Carnegie Mellon University

 

  _____  

From: public-sws-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sws-ig-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Charlie Abela
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 2:28 AM
To: merrychang79
Cc: xuan shi; public-sws-ig
Subject: Re: W3C and SWS

 

Dear merry and Xuan,

I think that a number of emails that people sent in respect to some of your
comments actually had all that you are suggesting in mind...you will find
numerous papers (google a bit :) in which the matchmaking (discovery),
composition ( e.g. through planning and other techniques) etc have been
tackled seperately but there are others in which a holistic approach has
been taken...
as regards shared" ontology definitions, on the OWL-S site there are some
supplimentary ontologies such as the profilehierarchy and the like that has
such a goal, as regards the standardised interface that is another issue and
I think we cannot force people to use one service definition language rather
then another, nevertheless you will also find that people working on WSMO
has compared their stuff with OWL-S and also (correct me if i'm wrong) found
mappings between the two languages. Other efforts have done similar mappings
for e.g. from BPEL2OWL-S...
I think one has to be patient, things take time to clarify, integrate and
get accepted...

Charlie

On 10/19/06, merrychang79 <merrychang79@163.com> wrote:

 

->SWS as a whole system should have at least three
components: a "shared" ontology definition on each service domain, a
centralized service registry system that enforces such "shared" ontology 
definition (anyone who wants to register the service into the system, it
has to agree with the semantic definition specified in that shared
ontology definition), and a "standardized" interface to enable the 
dynamic invocation. The shared ontology definition may enable the
dynamic service discovery and matchmaking through the centrailized
registry to identify certain Web services that matches the search
criteria. When the agent can identify a list of Web services, it can 
invoke anyone in that list without re-programming because all such
services have a standardized interface. <-

 

Absolutely agree what the Xuan has said. If SWS is only a car couldn't be
used for any reason, we have to acknowledge that it's a faillure to some
extent.

 

Regards,
Merry

 

 

 

 

 

 


  _____  



-----原始邮件-----
发件人:"Xuan Shi" 
发送时间:2006-10-17 23:56:51
收件人:"dhavalkumar thakker" 
抄送:",","" ,"" 
主题:Re: W3C and SWS



 
Dear Dhavalkumar, Drs. Martin, Klusch, and others,





First of all, I do want to apologize to all of you if what I posted


recently in the list make you feel frustrated. Although that was not my


intent, I know some words overstep the marks beyond academic discussion



when they were misconstrued publically and disrespectfully. With my good


faith to promote the research on semantic Web services, I do hope those


whom I insulted and all others could forgive my inappropriate behavior



and look forward to a more close cooperation in this community.





Let me try to elaborate what I think about semantic Web services for


your kind attention and comments. When we target the goal  of semantic






Web services as the dynamic and automatic service discovery,


matchmaking, composition and integration, SWS is a whole system like a


car. We cannot say the brake is perfect, but the car cannot run. Or we


cannot say the car runs fast and it has the best engine but it cannot



stop. Or the car has world No. 1 battery but that car is a junk. And so


on. It's the same view and logic to SWS. 





For this reason, we cannot just work on certain components of SWS, but


have to consider how to make the whole systems functions correctly and



appropriately. No matter how perfect each component is, if the car (SWS)


does not function well, it may just look like a negative junk. However,


when we see that the car functions well, this car may not have the best



components.





In my opinion, SWS as a whole system should have at least three


components: a "shared" ontology definition on each service domain, a


centralized service registry system that enforces such "shared" ontology



definition (anyone who wants to register the service into the system, it


has to agree with the semantic definition specified in that shared


ontology definition), and a "standardized" interface to enable the



dynamic invocation. The shared ontology definition may enable the


dynamic service discovery and matchmaking through the centrailized


registry to identify certain Web services that matches the search


criteria. When the agent can identify a list of Web services, it can



invoke anyone in that list without re-programming because all such


services have a standardized interface. 





Again, I apologize to all of you in this community, especially to team


members of OWL-S, WSMO, and SAWSDL, for those recent unhappy events I



generated. I welcome any kind of criticism and advice from you


publically or by private email contact. I hope my suggestion would show


some positive points for attention and discussion.





Best wishes,









Xuan














>>> "dhavalkumar thakker" <dhavalkumar@xsmail.com> 10/17/2006 5:12 AM



>>>





I think Tim Berners Lee answered the question, didnt he? 





Dear shi,





with all respect, if you find something is wrong, please suggest


something which you 


think is right, inplace of just pointing out to stuff which you think



is


wrong...


Because all we are getting from you is negative, negative and more


negative...











best regards,





Dhavalkumar









美 女 恐 怖 败 家 秀 ( 组 图 ) 
 
<http://adtaobao.allyes.com/main/adfclick?db=adtaobao&bid=600,597,58&cid=299
85,198,1&sid=32501&show=ignore&url=http://www.taobao.com/vertical/lady/pro.p
hp> 独 家 披 露 ! 小 资 女 人 8 个 绝 顶 隐 秘 的 趣 事 ( 组 图 )