- From: Austin Tate <a.tate@ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 18:07:55 +0100
- To: "public-sws-ig-w3.org" <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
- Cc: jbradshaw@ihmc.us, jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk, Andrzej Uszok <auszok@ihmc.us>
Comments arising from work at AIAI and IHMC on the DAML CoSAR-TS project on using OWL-S for process composition, policy analysis, and enactment. Hope they are useful. OWL-S Semantics Issues * OWL-S doesn't yet define a way to express preconditions and effects (The intention is to fix this in SWSL) * It is awkward to express the data-flow in a composite process that invokes the same service more than once (The intention is to fix this in OWL-S 1.1) * There are partial orders of service invocations and temporal constraints that the OWL-S control structures cannot express (The intention is to fix this in SWSL) OWL-S Workflow Issues * Current Process Model ontology is more suited to the purpose of defining internal structure of a single service * Need to attach Profile restrictions to a step of the workflow; used to find a Matchmaker-registered service that meets requirements during enactment * Composite processes are made up of non-unique instances of processes. We have not been able to find a way to add additional information to a particular step, for instance: * Profile restrictions * Policy analysis results OWL-S Deployment Issues * There doesn't seem to be an authoritative document that precisely defines the OWL-S semantics. Many questions aren't answered by the Technical Overview or by the OWL definitions of the OWL-S ontologies * RDF is awkward to use and difficult to read, and OWL-S doesn't yet have an agreed alternative "surface syntax" * There is currently no OWL-S editor * Doing simple things with OWL-S requires lots of software (e.g. Jena2 and all that it requires or the OWL-S API which requires Jena2 and more)
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2004 13:08:01 UTC