W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws@w3.org > October 2002

Re: DAML-S and OWL

From: David Martin <martin@ai.sri.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 00:06:14 -0700
Message-ID: <3DA13266.66D008E2@ai.sri.com>
To: Charlie Abela <abcharl@maltanet.net>
CC: www-ws@w3.org

Charlie Abela wrote:

> The DAML-S group has done useful work in this regards and their latest
> release of DAML-S 0.7 is imminent to be presented to the public. Though
> now that OWL is starting to become a reality, I have some questions as
> regards Web service descriptions.

Charlie, first, let me say thanks to you and others for your patience in
awaiting the 0.7 release, which is, as you know, overdue.  It will
definitely be announced this week.

> Is OWL enough when one speaks of Web service descriptions and
> integration? I think not. Correct if I am wrong.

You are right.  That is, OWL alone will not be enough to notate the sort of
Web service descriptions that we are supporting with DAML-S.  I'm sorry to
say I'm not completely up-to-date with respect to OWL's evolution, but I
think it's fair to say that OWL covers roughly the same territory as
DAML+OIL; that is, provides roughly the same range of expressiveness, and
certainly does not include any particular attention to creating service
descriptions.

> So is there going to be a similar effort to that done on DAML-S to come
> up with some sort of OWL-S?

There very likely will be, by the same folks working on DAML-S.  That is,
at some time when OWL is further along in its development and
standardization process, we will "re-host" DAML-S.  That is, we will modify
DAML-S to be based upon OWL instead of upon DAML-S.  But I don't expect
this to result in dramatic changes.  Actually, I expect the result to be
somewhat cleaner and more streamlined than what we have now.

> Though I ask, whether starting work all-over again on such a task is
> necessary.

Well, if and when we have OWL-S, some modifications to your work will
probably be required, but as I say above, I don't expect the changes to be
dramatic.  So it will definitely not be starting all over.

Regards,
David Martin

>
>
> Can someone comment on this please?
>
> Regards
>
> Charlie
Received on Monday, 7 October 2002 03:05:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:40 GMT