Re: Question on OWL-S 1.0 Profile

Hello all,
                            I agree with Alexandre. Now for the 
directory to be any use, both the profile and the process have to be 
provided. If this is the case, the profile and the process could be merged.

Also, the 1.0 release white paper says-

"....Furthermore, the Profile implicitly specifies the intended purpose 
of the service: it advertises those functionalities that the service 
wants to provide, while it may hide (not declare publicly) other 
functionalities..."

This might have been true for the earlier release as the profile had its 
own parameter descriptions (assuming that there might be a mechanism 
that first makes sure that the requester is a genuine and then provides 
the processModel file). In the new release, since the parameter 
descriptions are pointers to the process, the requester has access to 
the process model and therefore nothing would prevent the requester from 
accessing the hidden parameters/functionalities.


regards,
mithun





Alexandre Lins wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I have a question about the new OWL-S 1.0 specification 
>and I thought perhaps someone in the list could help me 
>with this.
>
>Looking through the specification for the profile I 
>noticed that the parameter descriptions (IOPEs) were 
>modified and became simple pointers to definitions in 
>the process model file.
>
>This new arrangement is more compact and clear, but 
>from the point of view of service discovery and 
>matchmaking, does not it means that now I need to send 
>a profile and a process model to perform matching?
>
>In the last version of the specification the names and 
>types of the parameters (IOPEs) were described in the 
>profile itself, and to perform matchmaking I could 
>simply send a profile description to a matchmaking 
>engine, right?
>
>Now there is no such information on the profile 
>anymore, and so I would need to send both descriptions 
>(profile and process model) to the matchmaker. Either 
>this, or not sending any information regarding IOPEs 
>for the matchmaker, in which case the match would be 
>done based only on service parameters and categories, 
>and other information.
>
>I just wanted to know if really got it right, or if I 
>missed something. Or perhaps there is some other 
>solution to this. Can someone help me with this?
>
>Regards,
>
>Alexandre Lins.
>
> 
>__________________________________________________________________________
>Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
>AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
>http://antipopup.uol.com.br/
>
>
>
>  
>

Received on Saturday, 10 January 2004 19:57:19 UTC