- From: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 09:31:36 -0400 (EDT)
- To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
> [Rob Atkinson] > Ultimate;y the meaning is derived from the existence of an > interoperability standard (de jure, de facto, or at least an expectation > of a common operating environment). Thus the ontology is of the > standards that actually make the services useful, with additional > descriptions of the functions to allow you to discover that the standard > is what you need to find supported bt real services. IMHO all the fluff > about creating descriptions of ad-hoc interfaces accessing > ill-defined functions and even less well defined content is just going > to be yet another wreck o the roadside. However, the ability to register > well known service types within an ontology seems like a simple, > scalable and usage driven solution to the same problem. Could you be more specific about what's "fluffy" and what isn't? It would be helpful to have examples of * ad-hoc interfaces * ill-defined functions * poorly defined content I tend to agree with you that we're in danger of going into the ditch somewhere in this vicinity, but I'd like a clearer picture of where the shoulder in the road is. -- -- Drew McDermott Yale Computer Science Department
Received on Saturday, 22 May 2004 09:39:37 UTC