- From: Terry Payne <trp@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 03:04:24 +0000
- To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
[Note - these are past minutes from recent SWSL telecons] ============================================= Minutes SWSL telecon - 29th January, 2004 #38 ============================================= Participants: Deb McGuinness David Martin Steve Battle Michael Gruninger Daniela Bernardi Terry Payne Ian Horrocks Appologies Michael Keifer Bijan Parsia Austin Tate Notetaker: TP Next Week: tbd (MG if no takers) Action Items ------------ Terry: To make final adjustments to discovery section and send to Dave who will integrate into requirements doc Dave: Think about conversations as part of the process model - should be a bullet point in the Requirements Document To send a note to Michael G. about this Send minor feedback to Terry Send References to Situational Calculus Follow up Mark Burstein on Architecture Group. Editors of the Requrements Doc: Should provide short comments on how the requirements relate to the models in the WS Architecture Doc. Minutes ------- Discussion on planning the F2F Most people expect to be attending WWW Peter/Frank/Ian thinking of running an OWL developers meeting on the WWW conf at some point. Tbd? Discussion Points - Requirements Doc - Semantics of Process modelling No comments on the requirements doc, other than minor ones to be sent by David Martin, who will move glossary to the end of the doc. Vote planned on Requirements Doc on 12th Feb 2004 Conversations should be definable in the process model. DM: What is the conceptual basis for our modelling framework, based on Service Oriented Model as proposed by Web Services Architecture Group; http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-ws-arch-20030808/ DM: I have asked Mark Burstein about what the Architecture Committee has thought about the framework (above) - currently awaiting a reply. MG: Is the Services Oriented model a strawman Model - which we then expand? SB: Seams too course grained for our needs. DM: Message-Oriented model is necessary (implicitly in OWL-S, but needs bringing out) DM: Policy Model also of central interest DM: How are we going to use these? MG: Could be used to form a suite of ontologies. How do semantics fit into this architecture. Agents should reason about services - what parts of this architecture should they reason about? For example - should the agent reason about the messages - the content etc? Deb: I would think they would, including subclassing. MG: Need to ensure anything we reason about is in the ontology DM: Looking at the service oriented model (Section 2.3.2) TP: Agent plays a role of providing several orthogonal(?) services. Each service may have associated or ancillary services, e.g. "Cost of doing thing" or "Making a reservation to do thing sometime in the future", where 'thing' is the core service. DM: Is Agent playing a role? Is this the right term - could be a local of state? DM: Want to avoid discussion of Agents and agency for this discussion. DM: 6 key issues on this diagram DM: Agents perhaps should have a goal - our view is different to the model, and hence we'd need to abstract away. DM: Should our language mention goals? An early critique of OWL-S was that the implied architecture of OWL-S omitted goals. MG: Implicit in the language is that there are relationships between agents and goals. Goals could be specified in the language, but not necessary - it is a modelling design decision But we could want to have goals to talk about the goal of an agent, etc Might need to reason about conflicting goals (though would want to avoid deontic notions if possible). DM: this might tie into contracting etc.??? MG: Contracting/Negotiation would use goals. This is something that seams to be missing from the W3C models... DM: They have notion of a request - subclass of profile TP: An agent request typically looks for a service that achieves a goal MG: Need to think what we need for SWSL - shouldn't be too bound to whether or not OWL-S has goals, etc. DM: Need to think about how goals relate to matchmaker requests etc. MG: We probably need for now to just decide if Goal should appear in the language. MG: Use diag as a starting point, but should look at requirements doc. TP: Do we want to produce our own diag/explanation (based on this and the requirements) and ultimately produce an OWL representation? MG: Primary work is on requirements - use diag as a reality check DM: Should therefore proceed on this. DM: Background on future work. OWL-S committee have been revisiting formal semantics of process model. Consensus is that we map OWL on to situational calculus. But not to be an action item for now. Mebbie this is what we should do here. Some discussion on www-rdf-rules. _______________________________________________________________________ Terry R. Payne, PhD. | http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~trp/index.html University of Southampton | Voice: +44(0)23 8059 8343 [Fax: 8059 2865] Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK | Email: terry@acm.org / trp@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Received on Monday, 23 February 2004 22:04:27 UTC