- From: Shi, Xuan <xshi@GEO.WVU.edu>
- Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:28:15 -0500
- To: "Shi, Xuan" <xshi@GEO.WVU.edu>, "''Drew McDermott ' '" <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, "''public-sws-ig@w3.org ' '" <public-sws-ig@w3.org>, "''Jim Hendler ' '" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
http://157.182.136.76/AItest/ws/WebService4/Service1.asmx?WSDL converts lat/lon into UTM meters ---my mistake. -----Original Message----- From: Shi, Xuan To: 'Drew McDermott '; 'public-sws-ig@w3.org '; 'Jim Hendler ' Sent: 11/25/05 12:35 PM Subject: RE: Where are the semantics in the semantic Web? ...... Is there a serious problem about classifying roads? I find that very hard to believe. I grant that different groups are likely to arrive at ontologies that carve up the world in ways that overlap at various unforeseen points. That's why I've done work in ontology translation. Automatic inference of the rules required to translate between ontologies is a very difficult problem. But the rules themselves are not terribly complicated, and in particular seem to be straightforwardly deductive. (I'm thinking here of, say, a rule that translates statements about roads from a North American ontology into a European one.) And in any case, organizing and applying translation rules is a computational problem, not a semantic one. -- Drew McDermott Yale University Computer Science Department I would not discuss further about Semantic Web issues since some people in this group may complain for such discussion on SW while I am glad to see we do have the need for such discussion. Regarding the road classification issues, I have to say, yes, it's been a problem for a long time. U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Census Bureau, etc. have different classification systems and we GIS users meet the problem for data transformation, integration, mapping, spatial analysis and modeling, etc. Another interesting scenario is that the concept of road system may be different in Germany from that in the other part of Europe. Thus sharing the meaning of a common object that we are talking about is difficult, such as the examples of "forest", "swamp", etc. So we need to build ontology to solve the problem, but still are so far from understanding the solution as Dr. Hendler said. The way of Semantic Web to set up inferentail rules is one approach (maybe it's good for the unknown objects) while standardization may be the other way for semantic interoperability (maybe it's good for the known objects while we can still use RDF/OWL in this process). But that's not the end of solution or discussion. For example, DAML created an ontology of "map" which is published at: http://www.daml.org/2001/06/map/map-ont . While obviously, it is problematic in the eyes of GIS professionals, the more difficult task is how to create an ontology of "mapping" for developing semantic Web services (I am not sure if there is any ontology of human actions defined by RDF/OWL). But where are your viewpoints and suggestions to my discussion in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sws-ig/2005Nov/0089.html This debate was originated from one proposed framework for the semantic Web services. It seems you igored my key point for the discussion again regarding the potential semantic chaos generated by adding semantic annotations onto WSDL objects and elements. Regarding Dr. McDermott's question in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sws-ig/2005Nov/0083.html here is my answer and question again, http://157.182.136.76/AItest/ws/WebService1/Service1.asmx?WSDL geocodes the input place name and returns the lat/lon to the requesters. This Web service just wrapped the same function of ESRI's "Place Finder Sample Web Service" http://www.arcwebservices.com/services/v2006/PlaceFinderSample.wsdl thus these two Web services should have the same service semantics. http://157.182.136.76/AItest/ws/WebService1/Service1.asmx?WSDL converts lat/lon into UTM meters. This Web service wrapped the same function "ConvertLonLatPtToUtmPt" of Microsoft's TerraService http://terraservice.net/TerraService.asmx?WSDL thus the same function in these two Web services should have the same semantics. How can we add semantic annotations to tell the requesters that the semantics of such services or functions are the same, while exactly the same functional interfaces in http://157.182.136.76/AItest/ws/WebService1/Service1.asmx?WSDL and http://157.182.136.76/AItest/ws/WebService4/Service1.asmx?WSDL have different semantics? Are there any potential semantic chaos generated by adding semantic annotations onto WSDL objects and elements or we should separate service descriptions from the technology for service development?
Received on Friday, 25 November 2005 18:27:55 UTC