- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:34:50 +0900
- To: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org, Naveen Srinivasan <naveen@cs.cmu.edu>
On Dec 3, 2004, at 12:24 AM, Paul Libbrecht wrote: > > Hi, > > While reading this, I came to think that all these translations Java > > WSDL > OWL-S, though well integrated, may be somewhat "lossy" in terms > of expressivity. Well, it depends on what you mean. In one sense, yes, in another sense, no :) There is clearly a sense in which, as a language, Java is more expressive than WSDL (though I would say that, in so far as WSDL *has* a semantics, it's prolly less expressive than OWL-S or OWL). Java is turing complete and has lots of practical expressivity (in terms of libraries, etc.). WSDL descriptions are, however, more abstract in that they define an *interface* which may be realized by code written in arbitrary languages. This adds a kind of expressivity! > I am all but an expert but isn't this somewhat simplistic to use all > these translations transparently ? Usually, there is some sort of augmentation or alteration done at each level. Well, java2wsdl is usually transparent *except* in so far as you might want to specify alternative bindings (which is significant!). When going form WSDL2OWL-S, you *at least* want to add to the profile something about the type, constraints, and capabilties of the service. So you've added informaton! Actually, it's similar to what you might add when creating a UDDI entry. Hope this helps. Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2004 15:36:42 UTC