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 13:35:50 -0800
Message-ID: <EDDE2977F3D216428E903370E3EBDDC9032B8A34@MAIL01.stc.com>
To: "Katia Sycara" <katia@cs.cmu.edu>, "Stephane Fellah" <fellah@pcigeomatics.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

Katia,
I guess I don't understand what you mean by "compliance with respect to
the WSA". (By the way, I don't think we ever defined what it means to be
WSA-compliant, if anything). Could you please give an example of what
you are thinking?

Thank you,
Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Katia Sycara [mailto:katia@cs.cmu.edu] 
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 1:26 PM
> To: Ugo Corda; 'Stephane Fellah'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Web Services Architecture Document
> 
> 
> Ugo, no I did not mean this, sorry for the confusion.
>  I meant if a spec for the design of a new Web service would 
> be expressed in OWL then the compliance of this Web service 
> with respect to the WSA could possibly be established through 
> inferencing from the OWL upper ontology and its 
> specializations.  --Katia
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] 
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 2:47 PM
> To: Katia Sycara; Stephane Fellah; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Web Services Architecture Document
> 
> 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 16:36:57 GMT

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