- From: Josh@oklieb <josh@oklieb.net>
- Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 00:18:21 -0500
- To: jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk
- Cc: "public-sws-ig@w3.org " <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
On Nov 19, 2005, at 4:30 PM, jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk wrote: > > Quoting David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>: > > >> In these messages, the primary point >> is simply this: since OWL-S proposed some of the same central >> approaches >> as are in WSDL-S, why should it not also be considered as an input? >> > > But why should it be considered as an input? > > What are the consequences of something being considered as an input? Presumably the point of selecting an input is to determine some part of the output, assuming there is some understanding of the process '>) > > BTW, why is it said that "the current WSDL standard operates at the > syntactic level"? What is any more semantic about the things that > are labelled "semantic"? Interesting question. To a person well versed in Web Services, there is perhaps little difference. Semantic technology does not really focus, however, on what people understand (or perhaps it would be better understood by people) but on what machines can work with. From this perspective, there can be a huge difference in between what are termed syntactic and semantic descriptions. In our geospatial semantic Web work, for example, we've had to work hard at avoiding either leaning on our private understanding of syntax or looking for some ultimate ontological truth, in favor of doing what leads to demonstrably more robust machine processing of geoinformation. Josh Lieberman > > >
Received on Monday, 21 November 2005 05:18:28 UTC