W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-semann@w3.org > July 2006

RE: SAWSDL Spec: Terminology editorial suggestion

From: C.Pedrinaci <C.Pedrinaci@open.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:08:05 +0100
Message-ID: <E0FEA5DF00E59E409F90C854A1B45BAA01993E5F@EPPING-EVS1.open.ac.uk>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Cc: "Rama Akkiraju" <akkiraju@us.ibm.com>, "SAWSDL public list" <public-ws-semann@w3.org>

Hi,

I don't think we should drop Semantics but reordering would probably
solve the issue. This would allow getting rid of the controversial word
"meaning" and we will keep a set of consistent definitions that reuse
previous ones.

Carlos

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek.kopecky@deri.org]
> Sent: 12 July 2006 09:32
> To: C.Pedrinaci
> Cc: Rama Akkiraju; SAWSDL public list
> Subject: RE: SAWSDL Spec: Terminology editorial suggestion
> 
> Hi Carlos,
> I think the definitions were meant to build on one another, i.e. the
> first would be standalone and the following would reuse the preceding
> ones. This would suggest keeping the definition of Semantics
standalone.
> 
> However, since the second definition, Semantic Model, does not in fact
> use the definition of Semantics, we might consider dropping Semantics
or
> reordering them so then Semantics could reuse Semantic Model as you
> suggest.
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> Jacek
> 
> On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 14:31 +0100, C.Pedrinaci wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The problem I see with this definition is that it basically
rephrases
> > the definition of Semantic Model instead of reusing it, which is a
bit
> > confusing in my opinion. I'd rather refer to "Semantic Model" which
is
> > defined afterwards.
> >
> > I know some are against this approach but I can hardly see any other
way
> > for defining semantics in this context, which won't fall into
rephrasing
> > the Semantic Model definition.
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: public-ws-semann-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-semann-
> > > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Rama Akkiraju
> > > Sent: 11 July 2006 12:48
> > > To: SAWSDL public list
> > > Subject: SAWSDL Spec: Terminology editorial suggestion
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > In the current version of SAWSDL spec, in section 1.1
'Terminology',
> > the
> > > definition for semantics is given as below.
> > >
> > > Current Definition:
> > > "Semantics in this context refers to the meaning of objects or
> > > information.
> > > An agent invoking a Web service concerns itself with the semantics
of
> > the
> > > service, as well as its input and output messages."
> > >
> > > My recommendation is to change it to something along the following
> > lines.
> > > The primary reason for change suggestion is that the current
defintion
> > > refers to 'meaning' which could be controversial. An ontology
> > describes a
> > > set of terms/concepts and their relationships. I don't think we
need
> > to
> > > get
> > > into 'meaning' for the purposes of this SAWSDL spec.
> > >
> > > Change Suggestion:
> > > "Semantics in the scope of this specification refers to the
concepts
> > in a
> > > domain model and the context around these concepts. This context
is
> > > defined
> > > by the relationships these concepts hold with other concepts in
the
> > domain
> > > model."
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Rama Akkiraju
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Received on Wednesday, 12 July 2006 10:08:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 17 April 2012 12:14:27 GMT