- From: Massimo Paolucci <paolucci@cs.cmu.edu>
- Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:35:21 -0500
- To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
Ooops, I sent the message to early, Anyway all I want to say is that depending on what the UDDI folks what to achieve OWL may help by adding a richer representation and the logic inference that comes with it. In general, I think that the search facilities and the functions that allow users to retrieve Web services would benefit from OWL. --- Massimo Massimo Paolucci wrote: > > Ugo, > > Ugo Corda wrote: > >> Did you find this front-end approach sufficient? Or do you think that >> additions to the existing UDDI data structures intended to directly >> support RDF/OWL information would bring substantial benefits? >> > Unfortunately, I do not have a good answer, and I will have to think > about your question some more. We took UDDI as a done deal, and we > tried to fit DAML-S into it, instead of redoing UDDI. Two places > where some semantic annotation may help are the tModels and the > category bag, which seem to be the main ways to retrieve information > from the repository. For other objects it all depends on what > questions UDDI users may want to ask. For example consider the > binding, if the goal is just to save binding information and retrieve > it then using OWL may not add anything, but if the goal is to be able > to ask which web services use a binding compatible with HTTP > constrained by some security parameters, then WLthere may be a case > for O > >
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2003 14:36:05 UTC