- From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevron.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:49:36 -0600
- To: drew.mcdermott@yale.edu, public-sws-ig@w3.org
Our interest in Semantic Web Services would be, I believe, primarily in reducing the cost of establishing electronic business relationships by reducing the ambiguities in the service descriptions. That is, the objective is to reduce the number of telephone calls and expensive misunderstandings, not to completely automate the process via an agent. There is no way in the world that we would be willing to let a contractual obligation be incurred by a decision made by an automated process. We, or at least I, have no interest in taking people out of the loop entirely. For this reason I keep looking for "halfway measures". Something simple that actually does something modestly useful in a reasonable time frame is much more attractive than ambitious projects that may or may not ever get finished -- at least on a time scale comparable to my remaining working life. -----Original Message----- From: public-sws-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sws-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Drew McDermott Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 1:53 PM To: public-sws-ig@w3.org Subject: Re: Where are the semantics in the semantic Web? > [Shi, Xuan] > However, if service semantics is developed based on standards and > agreements, then everything is clear and we do not need logic for > matchmaking. Well, yes, but that takes all the fun out of it. You seem to be saying that human developers, given enough clear information about web services, can write any desired program for interacting with web services. That's certainly true. The more interesting question (to me, anyway) is whether there is a point in "generality space" where it pays people to describe web services formally enough that automated agents can write the programs, or at least play a role in writing them. The descriptions would have to be written without detailed knowledge of what program was going to be required, which seems to indicate that the notation should be neutral and general-purpose. Such notations tend to look like logic of some kind. Of course, the answer to the "interesting question" may well be No. -- Drew -- -- Drew McDermott Yale University Computer Science Department
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2005 22:50:16 UTC