W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws@w3.org > November 2005

Re: Semantics for Web Services Characterization

From: Abraham Bernstein <bernstein@ifi.unizh.ch>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:13:52 +0100
Message-ID: <438440E0.1020201@ifi.unizh.ch>
To: Sheila McIlraith <sheila@cs.toronto.edu>
Cc: "Battle, Steven Andrew" <steve.battle@hp.com>, David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>, Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org>, public-sws-ig@w3.org, www-ws@w3.org

Dear all

I would like to support Sheila's statement and add exception handling as 
one of the important issues to be considered. Things do go wrong, and 
knowing (and being able to reason about) what to do in those cases is 
central to most realistic applications.
SWSF had a scenario on this subject.

Best

Avi

Sheila McIlraith wrote:

>
>All,
>
>I've been silent to date since others (e.g., Jim, David, Steve, Bijan
>and others) have been doing a good job of echoing my opinons on this
>subject.
>
>I also favour David Martin's proposal that no technology be mentioned.
>Nevertheless, if technologies are to be mentioned, and if as Steve
>suggests we cite W3C submissions that support the study of
>particular use cases, then (at the risk of devolving this
>discussion even further) I'd like to make the following augmentations
>to Steve's list.
>
>  
>
>>WSDL-S : invocation & discovery;
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>OWL-S : composition (service as process) & discovery;
>>    
>>
>
>  I would add invocation and possibly simulation, verfication
>
>  
>
>>WSMO : discovery (service as value) & mediation;
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>SWSF : validation.
>>    
>>
>   I would add discovery (there are interesting discovery queries that
>   can *only* be handled by SWSF), composition, simulation and
>   verification (because SWSF is, to my knowledge, alone among the W3C
>   submissions in being able to capture the semantics of processes)
>
>
>Sheila
>
>
>======================================================================
> Sheila McIlraith --  Dept of Computer Science, University of Toronto
> www.cs.toronto.edu/~sheila -- sheila [at] cs [dot] toronto [dot] edu
> Phone: 416-946-8484  --  Fax: 416-978-1455
>======================================================================
>
>
>On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Battle, Steven Andrew wrote:
>
>  
>
>>David,
>>
>>I agree that the goal should be to derive the functionalities from the
>>use-cases, so I think your simplified suggestion, mentioning NO
>>technologies, is _my_ favoured solution.
>>
>>If people feel we don't live in a purely use-case driven world (gasp),
>>then the _next_ best option is to cite any W3C submission (in the
>>semantic web-service space) that will support the process by studying
>>the use-cases they anticipate. Approximately, WSDL-S : invocation &
>>discovery; OWL-S : composition (service as process) & discovery; WSMO :
>>discovery (service as value) & mediation; SWSF : validation.
>>
>>Either way the technology itself isn't important. The worst of all
>>options, of course, is to attempt to characterize all potential
>>use-cases in terms of a single technology.
>>
>>Steve.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: David Martin [mailto:martin@AI.SRI.COM]
>>>Sent: 22 November 2005 06:34
>>>To: Carine Bournez
>>>Cc: Battle, Steven Andrew; public-sws-ig@w3.org; www-ws@w3.org
>>>Subject: Re: Semantics for Web Services Characterization
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>"The mission of the Semantics for Web Services
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>Characterization Group
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>is to continue in the footprints of solutions like WSDL-S and study
>>>>>the field of applications and identify key points that are not
>>>>>immediately solved using Web services technologies."
>>>>>
>>>>>could be changed to something like:
>>>>>
>>>>>"The mission of the Semantics for Web Services
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>Characterization Group
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>is to study the field of applications addressed by
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>technologies such
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>as WSDL-S, OWL-S, WSMO and SWSF and to identify key points that are
>>>>>not immediately solved using Web services technologies."
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>Restricting the scope to the fields that are already addressed by
>>>>existing technologies is IMHO a bad idea for characterization.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Note that Steve's proposed language does not say anything
>>>about "restricting" the scope to ... existing technologies.
>>>It uses the phrase "such as", which has a similar meaning to
>>>"for example".
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>The goal
>>>>is to derive the functionalities from the use cases, not from the
>>>>technologies developed in the area.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Yes, that's a very strong point.  But then why mention
>>>WSDL-S?  If the primary motivation is to avoid any tendency
>>>to derive use cases or functionalities from particular
>>>technologies, then it would make sense not to mention any
>>>particular technologies.  A phrase like "follow in the
>>>footprints of technology X" is extremely vague and could very
>>>easily be misinterpreted as guidance towards identifying
>>>functionalities that could build on technology X, which, as
>>>you say, is to be avoided.  I would recommend simplifying as follows:
>>>
>>>"The mission of the Semantics for Web Services
>>>Characterization Group is to study the field of applications
>>>and identify key points that are not immediately solved using
>>>Web services technologies."
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>David
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>    
>>
Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2005 10:18:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:50 GMT