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

RE: WS Architectural Loose Ends / Outstanding issues

From: Katia Sycara <katia@cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:47:57 -0500
To: 'Ugo Corda' <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, "'Champion, Mike'" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <003601c3d628$b2597970$d1bd0280@scs.ad.cs.cmu.edu>

Ugo, thanks, yes I followed the cross-ontological reasoning discussion
In the public-sws-ig.
 Thanks, Katia

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Ugo Corda
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 3:37 PM
To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: WS Architectural Loose Ends / Outstanding issues


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Katia Sycara [mailto:katia@cs.cmu.edu] 
> > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:34 PM
> > To: 'Champion, Mike'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Cc: katia@cs.cmu.edu
> > Subject: RE: WS Architectural Loose Ends / Outstanding issues
> > 
> > Mike, yes, this is the minimum that should be said.
> >  We may want to say more (e.g. perhaps bringing common 
> > ontologies into the picture --I find it very probable that 
> > industries would want to define and utilize such ontologies 
> > extensively).
> 
> I find it very probable that they will spend years debating the "real"
> meaning of common terms that everyone understands intuitively <duck>.
> 

Another problem is that the set of ontologies understood by different
services/requesters might be different, so you have the problem of reasoning
across them.

This issue was recently discussed on the SWS-IG list (see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sws-ig/2003Dec/thread.html, the
"cross-ontologies reasoning" thread).

Ugo
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2004 15:49:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:24 GMT