W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sws-ig@w3.org > September 2004

RE: Executing OWL-S/Profile

From: Jun Shen <jshen@it.swin.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:11:58 +1000
To: <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003301c4a123$789eb210$9b07ba88@JSHENPC>

Haha..Sure, I no longer suppose that now. But I'm still concerned about syntax
issues. I also read some papers using BPEL to support OWL-S or vice versa. 



-----Original Message-----
From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:bparsia@isr.umd.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 1:56 PM
To: Jun Shen
Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Executing OWL-S/Profile

On Sep 22, 2004, at 8:27 PM, Jun Shen wrote:

> I supposed BPEL or ebXML may be good at execution of e-services while 
> OWL-S enables matchmaking. :-)

OWL-S process models are perfectly executable. As mentioned, our group 
has a native OWL-S executer (in our OWL-S API), as does CMU (with their 
DAML/OWL-S virtual machine). Neither of these compile to BPEL or ebXML.

Fujistu's Task Computing project uses the OWL-S API with our reasonable 
Pellet to support user driven composition of OWL-S described services 
and the execution of those compositions (i.e., CompositeServices). 
We've published on our use of the SHOP2 planner to automate composition 
of executable OWL-S compositions.

Hmm. Now I notice the past tense of your "supposed". Does this mean you 
no longer suppose that?

Received on Thursday, 23 September 2004 04:13:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:32:46 UTC