(unknown charset) Re: WSRF and OWL-S ?

Thanks for this.

I would also be interested in people's views and experience of the
orthogonality of these things.  WSRF grew from OGSI, which attracted 
much discussion over its so-called "stateful services" - some saw 
these as denying some of the benefits of the web services model.  In
WSRF there was a shift to a resource perspective in which services 
provide access to state.  One question is, does this state issue have 
any impact at all on the use of OWL-S (e.g. in describing service
composition), or are these things orthogonal as suggested?  I believe 
that in principle WSRF services can be described with sufficient
expressivity in OWL-S, but it would be interesting to see someone 
apply OWL-S to some "real" WSRF services in order to get some insight 
into this in an application context.

Thanks

-- Dave

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004, Paul Libbrecht wrote:

> Cool,
> 
> I can only agree with this relationship situation.
> It says:
> 	In this sense, OWL-S is complementary to both these specifications.
> which can be sort of viewed. Except, the complementarity has just not 
> been ever experimented with thus far, or ?
> 
> paul
> 	
> 
> 
> Le 23 déc. 04, à 15:41, Chiusano Joseph a écrit :
> 
> >
> > This is a late reply to the original Nov 19 posting beow, as there is
> > new information available regarding the original question of "WSRF and
> > OWL-S", since the original posting. See [1], an excerpt from "OWL-S'
> > Relationship to Selected Other Technologies".
> >
> > [1] http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.1/related.html#grid
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Joseph Chiusano
> > Booz Allen Hamilton
> > Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: public-sws-ig-request@w3.org
> >> [mailto:public-sws-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David De Roure
> >> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 7:08 PM
> >> To: Paul Libbrecht
> >> Cc: public-sws-ig
> >> Subject: Re: WSRF and OWL-S ?
> >>
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> This is a really interesting question!
> >>
> >> I'm not going to try to answer it, just expand on I think why
> >> it's interesting and important... )
> >>
> >> WSRF is based on the concepts of the Open Grid Services
> >> Infrastructure, designed to address the requirements of Grid
> >> middleware.  It is anticipated to represent the convergence
> >> of the Web service and Grid computing communities.
> >>
> >> There is (some of us believe) a very strong case for the
> >> application of Semantic Web Services in Grid middleware.  In
> >> fact this was a subject of a discussion at the IST2004
> >> conference this week in the Hague.  This is part of the
> >> Semantic Grid vision (www.semanticgrid.org)
> >>
> >> Which therefore begs a question along the lines you ask; i.e.
> >> how well suited are SWS technologies (OWL-S, WSMO...) to the
> >> description of Grid services (as in WSRF) - what we might
> >> call "Semantic Grid Services".
> >>
> >> Some of the deployments of SWS in grid computing have
> >> consisted of subsets of OWL-S applied in Web-services based
> >> solutions.  I was conjecturing earlier this week that there
> >> are aspects of WSMO which, on the surface at least, suggest
> >> it may be well suited to some Grid computing scenarios (for
> >> example, separation of business logic).
> >>
> >> So, as you say, it would be really interesting to know if
> >> anyone is applying semantic web services to grid services
> >> along the lines of WSRF.
> >> In fact it would be interesting to know what people think the
> >> issues are.
> >>
> >> It should be possible to find some use cases.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> -- Dave
> >>
> >> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 	
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I recently discovered WSRF, the Web-Service Resource Framework
> >>> 	http://www.globus.org/wsrf/
> >>> and I have to say that it looks nice.
> >>> I was wonder wether anyone of you has been working making semantic
> >>> web-services stateful like this specification makes general
> >>> web-services stateful.
> >>>
> >>> Actually, it may be that these recommendations are
> >> orthogonal, but I
> >>> couldn't be sure of this, yet.
> >>>
> >>> paul
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 23 December 2004 17:52:05 UTC