RE: UDDI and semantics

Hi,

I am happy to see such initiative. I think RDF and OWL is gaining
momentum now in the web service arena.
I would go a little further in your initiative by developing a ontology
for the UDDI concepts such as Tmodel, Bindings,..
ebXML seems also to take this path. By doing so, it would be possible to
perform semantic mapping of both registry model and be able to query
seamlessly both registries and avoid implementing multiple specialized
API for each registry. A common RDF model will certainly favor
interoperability across different registry models. 

Best regards
 
Stephane Fellah
Senior Software Engineer
 
PCI Geomatics
490, Boulevard St Joseph
Hull, Quebec
Canada J8Y 3Y7
Tel: 1 819 770 0022 Ext. 223
Fax 1 819 770 0098
Visit our web site:  www.pcigeomatics.com
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Lansing [mailto:jeff@polexis.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 12:13 PM
To: Max Voskob
Cc: www-sws-ig
Subject: Re: UDDI and semantics



Max,

This feels like it would be something useful, and even more so if  it 
were possible to search on the RDF statements.

Jeff

Max Voskob wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>UDDI TC is considering RDF to inlude semantic descriptions with UDDI 
>entities. This proposal is at an early stage, but I'd like to start a 
>wider discussion on this option because it intersects with the general 
>dicsussion on use of semantics with WS.
>I hope this mailing list is the right place to get the bigger picture
of
>what we are trying to do.
>
>The idea is to include RDF statements as part of an UDDI entity so that

>the statements can be linked to some external taxonomies or ontologies 
>(see the attached diagram).
>
>
>In this case the role of UDDI does not include reasoning or parsing the

>taxonomy - it provides purely registery and discovery services.
>
>Your comments and ideas are very welcome.
>
>Regards,
>Max Voskob
>member of UDDI TC
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>

Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2003 12:31:25 UTC