W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws@w3.org > August 2003


From: Jeff Lansing <jeff@polexis.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 14:36:03 -0700
Message-ID: <3F2ADD43.4060302@polexis.com>
To: www-ws@w3c.org

Katia, Terry:

Ok, this looks pretty good. So, given your mapping to UDDI, how will I 
get a bunch of services registered in this way? Perhaps there should be 
a Protege plugin?

Also, there seems to be a lot of room for making type/instance 
confusions. For example, a service type will have a certain set of 
inputs, outputs, and preconditions. But the instances of services of 
that type could (probably would) have different geographicRadius's. So 
some tModels would be shared, and others not.

Also, there isn't really a lot of information about the actual tModels 
in the mappings, and what they are supposed to be doing. For instance 
the DAML-S tModel: what's that? Would there be just one of these for all 



Katia Sycara wrote:

>Jeff, in my lab at CMU, besides publications like the one Terry referred
>you to, we  have an implementation of a DAML-S matchmaker integrated
>with UDDI.
> Please check www.cs.cmu.edu/~softagents under Semantic web research, in
>particular Daml-s matching engine. 
>-----Original Message-----
>From: www-ws-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
>Jeff Lansing
>Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 11:07 AM
>To: www-ws@w3c.org
>Subject: DAML-S and UDDI
>Has anyone proposed a mapping for storing DAML-S in a UDDI registry? Or 
>is this just a totally bad idea, that I haven't seen why it is such,
>My thought was: Hey, if web services is UDDI + SOAP + WSDL (and, 
>implicitly, if you believe the hype, that's all it is), and we know that
>you can't even begin to figure out what a service does from its WSDL, 
>then why not.
Received on Friday, 1 August 2003 17:36:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:09 UTC