W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > February 2004

RE: Web Services Architecture Document

From: Stephane Fellah <fellah@pcigeomatics.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:47:23 -0500
Message-ID: <8ED21571324EB145933ACCD22B86AC364702C4@bach.ncr.pcigeomatics.com>
To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, "Katia Sycara" <katia@cs.cmu.edu>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

Roger, 

Let me try to come out with a definition of an upper ontology for web
services. 

An upper ontology for Web Service is limited to concepts that are meta,
generic, abstract and philosophical for service oriented architectures
(SOA), and therefore are general enough to address (at a high level) a
broad range of web service standards and infrastructure (ebXML, UDDI,
OGSI,..). Concepts specific to given domains will not be included;
however, this standard will provide a structure and a set of general
concepts upon which specific web service standards could be constructed
or hooked on. The upper ontology would allow to have a unified view on
all the different Service Oriented Architecture and therefore be able to
bridge them by using semantic reasoning. 

Best regards
 
Stephane Fellah
Senior Software Engineer
 
PCI Geomatics
490, Boulevard St Joseph
Hull, Quebec
Canada J8Y 3Y7
Tel: 1 819 770 0022 Ext. 223
Fax 1 819 770 0098
Visit our web site:  www.pcigeomatics.com
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com]

Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 9:11 PM
To: Katia Sycara; Stephane Fellah; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Web Services Architecture Document


OK, I've heard this term enough and I've just gotta ask ... What is an
"upper level ontology"?  It appears from context to have some sort of
pretty specific meaning. Everybody contributing to this discussion seems
to know it but I sure don't.  

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Katia Sycara
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 1:28 PM
To: 'Stephane Fellah'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Cc: katia@cs.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: Web Services Architecture Document



Although we cannot force anyone to adopt this ontology, I sincerely hope
that folks, not only OWL-S, but others, will adopt it as an upper level
ontology for continuing work on Web services.  Cheers, Katia

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Stephane Fellah
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 11:24 AM
To: Katia Sycara; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Web Services Architecture Document


This is good news. Can I assume safely that this ontology will be
considered as the upper-ontology for the W3C web services architecture,
on which other ontologies such as OWL-S should hook in ?

Best regards
 
Stephane Fellah
Senior Software Engineer
 
PCI Geomatics
490, Boulevard St Joseph
Hull, Quebec
Canada J8Y 3Y7
Tel: 1 819 770 0022 Ext. 223
Fax 1 819 770 0098
Visit our web site:  www.pcigeomatics.com
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Katia Sycara [mailto:katia@cs.cmu.edu] 
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 10:52 AM
To: Stephane Fellah; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Cc: katia@cs.cmu.edu
Subject: RE: Web Services Architecture Document


Staphane,
 We are working on an OWL formalization of the concepts and
relationships in the Web Services Architecture. It will be published
along with the final Working Group product by end of next week. 
 As for OWL-S it is not a Working Group of the W3C, though some of us
would like it to become one.
  Cheers, Katia

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Stephane Fellah
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 5:27 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: Web Services Architecture Document


Hi,

I have a couple of questions related to the scope of your working group.
Is there any chance to see an OWL formalization of the different
concepts and relationships exposed in the WS Architecture Document ?
What would be the next step for W3C : define again new XML schemas
(syntaxic approach) or using semantic web technologies (OWL). I clearly
favor the last option because the syntaxic approach is too brittle to
scale on the web. The OWL-S effort seems to address the same problem,
but uses different terms. Is there any harmonization effort between the
working groups ? 

Thanks in advance.
 
Best regards
 
Stephane Fellah
Senior Software Engineer
 
PCI Geomatics
490, Boulevard St Joseph
Hull, Quebec
Canada J8Y 3Y7
Tel: 1 819 770 0022 Ext. 223
Fax 1 819 770 0098
Visit our web site:  www.pcigeomatics.com
 
Received on Monday, 2 February 2004 10:48:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:26 UTC