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

RE: Web Services Architecture Document

From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:46:31 -0800
Message-ID: <EDDE2977F3D216428E903370E3EBDDC9032B8A31@MAIL01.stc.com>
To: "Katia Sycara" <katia@cs.cmu.edu>, "Stephane Fellah" <fellah@pcigeomatics.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

Katia,
I am trying to think of examples of how your idea of spec compliance
verification could be applied.

Are you saying, for example, that if the WSDL 2.0 spec were to be
rewritten using OWL, then I could run a compliance verifier against the
WSA ontology and find out that WSDL 2.0 lacks intermediaries support?
This seems rather far fetched to me.

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Katia Sycara [mailto:katia@cs.cmu.edu] 
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 11:34 AM
> To: Ugo Corda; 'Stephane Fellah'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Cc: katia@cs.cmu.edu
> Subject: RE: Web Services Architecture Document
> 
> 
> Ugo, for one, as Stephen suggests the OWL formalization can 
> be used as an upper ontology for the work of groups such as 
> the OWL-S coalition or the Semantic Web Services Language 
> committee (SWSL) and Semantic Web Services Architecture 
> committee (SWSA). The upper OWL ontology could be further 
> specialized by these groups, constraints could be added etc. 
> In a long term view, one could imagine that if a new spec for 
> example were to be expressed in such an ontology, then 
> inferences about compliance of the new spec with the 
> architecture could be inferred.  Cheers, Katia
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] 
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 11:34 AM
> To: Katia Sycara; Stephane Fellah; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Web Services Architecture Document
> 
> What I have not been able to figure out so far is the "then 
> what?" part. In other words, what is the goal for the OWL 
> formalization of WSA (besides being a showcase of semantic 
> technologies)? Is there a plan to do anything with that 
> formalization? What kind of results would you like to achieve 
> once you apply a reasoning engine to that information?
> 
> Ugo
> 
> > -----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 7:52 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 Friday, 30 January 2004 14:47:16 GMT

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