Re: Web service in WSDL vs. "service" in OWL-S

Terry, 

Thanks for your kind advice. I know this is a public forum for semantic
Web services research but I don't believe OWL-S is the right approach.
Why I cannot tell the truth?

We can share different views but such views should have a common ground
since this forum may not be a chat room for irrelevant issues other than
Web services under W3C specifications. That's why W3C limits its
definition of Web services (specifically have a WSDL interface - the
common ground for all W3C discussion on Web services) and said in 2004
"There are many things that might be called "Web services" in the world
at large." 

I wish I were able to read OWL-S submission more carefully and
understand by service, it means a Web site.

Regards,

Xuan

>>> Terry Payne <trp@ecs.soton.ac.uk> 08/01/06 11:05 AM >>>
Xuan,
	you are reading way too much into this, and making incorrect  
interpretations.  When we wrote the original documentation, it was  
not talking about web sites - you keep banging on about this but the  
position you're arguing isn't an accurate representation of what was  
written.

There are a number of different views regarding what constitutes Web  
Services, and what is a web service (should it be in XML?  Must it  
have its interface defined in WSDL?  What if a service grounds its  
interface in WSDL, but communicates directly with its peers using a  
KQML binding, and thus doesn't use http or xml at all???).   
Personally I don't want to get involved in that discussion, just as  
after several years of hearing similar debates about what is an  
autonomous agent ("oh, is it a light-sensitive switch?", for example).

Finally, could you please cease firing questions in a rather  
aggressive manner at certain individuals?  This is a large community  
that has been researching this field for a long time now, with all  
varying points of view (which make discussions interesting).   
However, with these recent questions, its started to feel more like a  
court of law (i.e. why this, why that, you said this, but you meant  
that, and its wrong).  If you have questions, then read the  
*research* literature and put the pieces together as others have done.

	Terry



On 1 Aug 2006, at 15:19, Xuan Shi wrote:

>
> Carine,
>
> W3C said @ http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/NOTE-ws-gloss-20040211/
>
> "Web service
> There are many things that might be called "Web services" in the world
> at large. However, for the purpose of this Working Group and this
> architecture, and without prejudice toward other definitions, we will
> use the following definition:
>
> A Web service is a software system designed to support interoperable
> machine-to-machine interaction over a network. It has an interface
> described in a machine-processable format (specifically WSDL). Other
> systems interact with the Web service in a manner prescribed by its
> description using SOAP-messages, typically conveyed using HTTP with an
> XML serialization in conjunction with other Web-related standards."
>
> As for "WSDL-based service", I just want to STRESS on W3C  
> terminology of
> "Web services" - they should _specifically_ have a WSDL interface,  
> other
> than Web interface, you see W3C already emphasized such limitation in
> 2004 - "There are many things that might be called "Web services"  
> in the
> world at large.", like OWL-S people - they are talking about *Web
> sites*, not WSDL. I hope OWL-S people can give us a definite  
> explanation
> why they do not follow W3C specification but keep changing and
> transforming the concepts.
>
> Regards,
>
> Xuan
>
>
>
>>>> Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org> 08/01/06 4:35 AM >>>
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 12:08:03AM -0400, Xuan Shi wrote:
>>
>> If W3C and this SWS-IG try to define service semantics for WSDL-based
>> service, other than Web-site based service, people have to re-examine
>> the suitability of OWL-S for SWS because OWL-S targets at a wrong
> object
>> (Web site) other than Web service defined by W3C.
>
> Now stop that FUD. This Interest Group is not trying to define  
> semantics
> for "WSDL-based service". The term  "WSDL-based" is a complete non- 
> sense
> and you misread (once again) the definition of the WS Arch Note.
> Opposing "WSDL-based" and "web-based" is of course as non-sensical as
> opposing REST and WSDL.
>
> Of course I will not answer any of your questions, the troll is over
> (at least for me, it's up to other contributors to decide if they want
> to lose their time).
>
>
> -- 
> Carine Bournez -+- W3C Europe
>
>


_______________________________________________________________________
Terry R. Payne, PhD.        | http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~trp/index.html
AgentLink III Co-coordinator    | AgentLink III - http:// 
www.agentlink.org
University of Southampton    | Voice: +44(0)23 8059 8343 [Fax: 8059  
2865]
Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK | Email: terry@acm.org / trp@ecs.soton.ac.uk

Received on Tuesday, 1 August 2006 16:47:23 UTC