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


From: Daniel Elenius <danel698@student.liu.se>
Date: 05 Mar 2003 17:28:29 +0100
To: Jing_Wang <Jing_Wang@HotPOP.com>, www-ws@w3.org
Message-Id: <1046881708.1332.44.camel@p85.ryd.student.liu.se>

> Thanks for your PJXTA link, I checked the newsgroup there, seems now 
>can run
> on iPAQ, but I did try JXTA SE on iPAQ before, the error happened in
> de/encrypt part which I cannot correct, and it says more work will be added
> into this part as the error prompt.


> CC/PP is a vocablulary set by w3c for device description, check it out on
> this link
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-CCPP-struct-vocab-20021108/
> Maybe you can refer to it when constructing your vocabulary.

Thanks a lot. That's not two years old btw :)

> As to DAML+OIL, have you thought of using OWL? It will be the coming
> standard I think. BTW, are you clear about the trouble to build ontology

I opted for DAML+OIL becaused it seemed more 'finished' than OWL, and
there are much more tools and reasoning engines supporting it. (Are
there any support programs for OWL at all? Isn't it still very much 'in
development'?). And perhaps most importantly because DAML+OIL is what
DAML-S uses. They have said that thir intention is for the next release
to be 'OWL-S' though, but I need it now, and I have already done some
work on my files.

> from scratch instead of using vocabulary you just define? Cause either way,
> you have to share your ontology or your vocabulary, even the ontology
> includes vocabulary. Isn't it redundance?

My intention so far has been:

The client has the DAML-S Profile files (and all needed supporting
vocabularies etc) for the kind of devices it want to use. (And the whole
parent profile hierarchy).

The server sends it:
Its implementation of the profile.
Its process model, service and grounding files.

As far as vocabularies go, so far I have just used some primitive XSD
datatypes, and some derived types that I have defined in XML Schema 

Using an existing device description vocabulary would be nice. I will
definitely look at CC/PP.

Note that I do not intend to use the ontologies in the 'standard',
distributed way. I do not assume that my clients and servers have
Internet connectivity, only that they can talk to each other. So all
vocabularies/ontologies have to be present at client or server.

Daniel Elenius <danel698@student.liu.se>
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2003 11:29:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:08 UTC