- From: Austin Tate <a.tate@ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:51:10 +0000
- To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
I think the terminology now being suggested for SWSL: perform some process or activity invoke some service gives the right flavour of a higher level description of a process, activity or its sub-processes and sun-activities... before getting down to a specific service (its really a resource that provided the service which executes the [atomic] activity) ----------------------------- With respect to discussions of naming things in SWSL like performs/uses/invokes, objectives/goals, plans, processes, activities, etc.. We could also maybe use some of the nomenclature from the experience of drawing on the PIF, NIST PSL and other plan/process representation work for an initial stab at a shared planning and activity representation (SPAR) language for DARPA research programs... It involved a large team of people commenting and critiquing this.. including some active folks on the current SWS-IG list. See http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/project/spar/ The SOAR work, which I chaired, started off with very large aspirations and a long term engineering approach to shared representations that would alter over time. version 0.1 tried this and went down like a lead brick. It was just way beyond anyone's interests to be looking at CHANGING ontologies when they did not even have one yet! This reflects my own background in data bases where the first question is often how do I get the data out in 30 years when the system no longer runs! But SPAR ended up with a more limited but very useful core ontology and extensions... aligned with NIST PSL and other work on <I-N-C-A> for example... See http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/project/spar/spar-doc-02.html The UML diagram at http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/project/spar/IMG/spar-model-19mar99.gif near the end of this document gives a quick overview. The roots of SPAR in terms of earlier plan and process representations, and its relationship to PIF and NIST PSL which are suggested as the basis for the SWS process language is documented in a paper from the Knowledge Engineering Review at http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/project/spar/DOCS/spar-roots.html Austin P.S. I am acting as corporate memory for the people who tried hard with work on these standards 4 or 5 years ago. it was a lot of work with many man years of effort and thousands of messages and heated debates. It would be nice to see some of it used in the new SWS world.
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2004 12:49:54 UTC