RE: OSRR vs. OWL-S, WSMO, and others

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-sws-ig-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-sws-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Shi, Xuan
> Sent: 25 January 2006 16:34
> To: 'public-sws-ig@w3.org'
> Cc: Shi, Xuan
> Subject: OSRR vs. OWL-S, WSMO, and others
> 
> 
> The fundamental difference between OSRR and others, as I 
> think, may be that OSRR is requester-oriented, while others 
> are provider-oriented.

I still don't buy this argument. The OWL-S process model describes how a
service is used - from the perspective of the client.

> OSRR focuses on how to tell requesters to understand and 
> compose a request to consume the service in an easy and simple way.

Ditto for OWL-S. The process model allows one to express a process
composition. To actually form a request you drop down to the service
grounding.

> OWL-S, WSMO, etc. focuses on how service providers handle 
> multi-services together to accomplish the multi-purpose task. 

This one still seems to be up for grabs. Personally I still think the
OWL-S process model focusses on the process involved in accessing a
_single_ service. It would be great if this generalised into a neat way
to constructing processes that span multiple services (emphasizing the
difference between a service and the process that describes it).

Personally, I don't understand right now how the process models of two
separate services can be combined to form a third 'composite' service,
again expressed in OWL-S. Typically you walk to the top of the
composition to find out what service an atomic process is part of (or
even what the grounding is). If there are multiple services involved I
would expect to remove the ambiguity by tagging each atomic process with
the service it belongs to (in the process model). I'm willing to be
convinced.

... 
> - if few people can use it [WSDL 2.0], why do we care about it when
HTTP 
> can do what WSDL 2.0 would provide?

The REST vs. SOAP debate is interesting and each style has its place.
For B2B web-services I prefer SOAP, for B2C REST provides a lightweight
alternative. However, the process model should be independent of these
concerns.

Steve.

Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 18:11:04 UTC