RE: Proposing Minor Changes to the OWL-S Service Profile

Dear Massimo,

Could you give me some detailed explanation as to what the problems are with
current way of constructing  taxonomy of profiles and how the new properties,
serviceClassification and serviceProduct, can help in this situation?

Thanks a lot!

Collin

> The problem with the taxonomy of profiles the way it is
> constructed now is that it does not match the rest of the
> profile,  for example in the definition of the taxonomy
> different properties of the classes are used directly instead
> of using the serviceParameter/serviceCategory mechanism that
> is proposed by the rest of the Profile.  The second problem
> is that some features described in the Profile, such as
> inputs and outputs, may be specific of the service and do not
> generalize to a class of services.
>
> I propose therefore to define the following two properties:
> serviceClassification and serviceProduct.  The first one is
> used to specify the type of service that is provided given
> some classification scheme.  The second one is used to define
> a Product given a product classification scheme.  The two
> properties are defined as follows:
>
>   <!-- Map the Profile to a Service Type -->
>
>   <rdf:Property rdf:ID="serviceClassification">
>     <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Profile"/>
>     <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&xsd;#anyURI"/>
>   </rdf:Property>
>
> (Here I used the anyURI mechanism that the OWL-S coalition is
> using to stay in OWL DL)
>
>   <!-- Map the Profile to a Product Type -->
>
>   <rdf:Property rdf:ID="serviceProduct">
>     <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Profile"/>
>     <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&xsd;#anyURI"/>
>   </rdf:Property>
>
> The current Profiles Hierarchy can be redefined to be a
> hierarchy of services.
>
> The two files: Profile.owl and ProfileHierarchy.owl contain
> the changes.
>
> --- Massimo
>
>