RE: Relation between OWL and OWL-S

Hi Massimo, 
Thank you for your answer..See my answers in the text...

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Massimo Paolucci [mailto:paolucci@cs.cmu.edu]
Envoyé : lundi 29 novembre 2004 16:26
À : daniela.claro@eseo.fr
Cc : public-sws-ig@w3.org
Objet : Re: Relation between OWL and OWL-S

Daniela,

Daniela CLARO wrote:

>Hi all,
> I would like to know what is actually the relation between OWL-S and OWL?
> 
>
This is quite a difficult question.  The problem is that while OWL-S is
based on OWL,  really much of its semantics is outside OWL.  For example,
the execution semantics for the OWL-S Process Model are defined in logics
that are beyond OWL and there are papers that point out problems at using
OWL inference engines to do discovery using the OWL-S profile.
I really have imagined, before developing my composite web service and
working with OWL-S, that in my profile I will have a link to my OWL file,
pointing exactly to my service that was described in the OWL file. So for
discovering any ambiguos problem, I would have the help of OWL file. The
link to my OWL file it would be the same as the link of wsdl file in owl-s
grounding. It was what I had imagined...


>How do I represent this relation in OWL-S?
>I will be more clear...for example, suppose that I have a service
>called AirplaneCompany that searches for a ticket beased on some input
>parameters and it belongs to a service composition called Travel.
>
>- How can I do automatic discovery in this case? I've read that the
>automatic discovery in OWL-S is based on its input and outputs
>parameters, so we can make a distinction between the services.
> 
>
 I am not quite sure what is your question here

1. what do you mean when you say that "AirplaneCompany ... belongs to a
service composition called Travel"?    To be discoverable
AirplaneCompany should be exposed as a service on its own.  The fact that it
is also used in a composition called Travel is meaningless.

I agree with you...I said above only how I try to discover a service. And
for me, using owl-s, to discover a service we use the input and outputs
parameters described in Service Profile to make the diference between to
services like sand:bank and economical:bank. BEcause, in these examples the
parameters will probable be different. 

2.  The idea of using inputs and outputs during discovery was an initial
proposal toward a discovery mechanism for OWL-S that was put forward by the
CMU group.  This is not the only way to do discovery with OWL-S, nor it has
been prescribed by the OWL-S coalition.

Excelente...tell me others way to discover a service...I will really
apreciate it....

>But actually, how can I say that my AirplaneCompany service is a class
>in OWL model? Where Can I put this relation in OWL-S? And also, where
>can I say that AirplaneCompany is the same service that
>AircraftCompany, as we do in OWL using equivalenceClass like:
>
><owl:Class rdf:ID="Aircraft">
>    <owl:equivalentClass rdf:resource="urn:eg#AirPlane"/>
>
>These relations exist? Or in OWL-S we can not say that?
>
Since OWL-S is based on OWL, you can always use owl:equivalentClass or any
other OWL construct.  In addition, the OWL-S discovery mechanisms may be
able to recognize that similarity automatically without explicitly stating
it.
But...how it will recognize similarity automatically without explicitly
stating it? If I do not say it anywhere, how can OWL-S recognize that???

Drew McDermott wrote:

>By the way, the banks you sit on are only banks in Italian;
>
Nope, benches in Italian are "panche" and banks (as financial
institutions) are "banche": very different!

> in English they are "benches," which comes from the Italian, but
>conveniently changed spelling, thus eliminating the confusion.
>
Really?  thousands of linguists spent their entire carrier trying to figure
out how to solve this confusion.
For me it was also a surprise, because the bank example I saw in many
published paper... 
> To
>compensate, the earthen walls of rivers are called "banks," so if we
>have a web service selling tours of river margins, the confusion is
>restored.
>
of course in Italian river banks are "argini" so you would not have an
ambiguity either ;-)

;:) and in French "banc" means wood palce where we sit on(bench) and "banc"
means also a sand bank in a river. 

BUT in portuguese, "banco" means wood place (bench) where we sit on and also
"banco"  means financial instituitions where we put our money.  


Right now we will probably not make any confusion...

Thank you very much...

Daniela