- From: (unknown charset) Mithun Sheshagiri <mits1@csee.umbc.edu>
- Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:33:49 -0500 (EST)
- To: (unknown charset) David Martin <martin@ai.sri.com>
- Cc: (unknown charset) Alexandre Lins <avrl@bol.com.br>, public-sws-ig <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, David Martin wrote: > > > Mithun Sheshagiri wrote: > > > > > Hello all, > > I agree with Alexandre. Now for the directory > > to be any use, both the profile and the process have to be provided. > > That's not really true. > > In the first place, OWL-S 1.0 does not state that a profile must refer > to the IOPE definitions in the process model. That is left open. So > yes, it is possible for the profile to refer to the IOPE definitions in > the process model - and I view that as the most normal approach. But it > is also possible for the profile to include its own IOPE definitions, > which would normally be copies of what are in the process model, or a > subset of them. You are right. I mistakenly made the conclusion based on the two examples of profile. Both these files have pointers to definition of IOPEs in the process model. > > Just because Parameter and its subclasses (Input, Output, etc.) are > defined in Process.owl, does not mean that instances of these classes > must appear in process models. That's part of the flexibility of OWL. > > Even if the profile refers to the same IOPE definitions as the process > model, I don't think that means that the entire process model has to be > made available along with the profile. For example, one simple solution > would be to put all the IOPE definitions in a separate file, and have > both the profile and the process model refer to the definitions in that > file. (As to whether those definitions should be in the same or in a > different namespace than the process model, I'm not sure at the moment.) > > Regards, > David Martin > > > 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 Sunday, 11 January 2004 14:33:59 UTC