- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:05:05 +0900
- To: jshen@it.swin.edu.au
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org, daniela.claro@eseo.fr
On Nov 23, 2004, at 6:20 PM, jshen@it.swin.edu.au wrote: > > Hi, Dan, > > I have no answer to your question. But from my understanding and > practice, I > think we need not worry about difference or relations between OWL and > OWL-S. That may be true, although there are interesting expressive gaps between the intended meaning of OWL-S descriptions (esp. in the process model) and what is actually said by the OWL which encode them. > You can decide how to describe what you need, no matter using RDF, OWL > or OWL-S > or even RuleML. Eh. I recommend OWL-S, naturally :) Or, rather, unless you are doing something entirely experimental in service description frameworks, trying to work with one of the well developed ones out there. Reuse, y'know. > Esp. OWL-S and RuleML are not appearing as a mature > recommendation, OWL-S is now a member submission to the W3C. http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/07/ It's fairly mature for some crufty sense of mature. > by anybody. We are not expecting every human or program or > agent become able to understand between each other yet. This seems like a non sequitur. > The important thing is > how to make your work done, then is how to present them. In the latter > case, > more intelligent people or agent make more complex or smarter toys or > tools or > applications or killer systems, like google (froogle, :), so that you > need a > good language to express it, including typing relations, let's say. Er...more into the weeds for me. Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2004 13:05:23 UTC