W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sws-ig@w3.org > July 2006

Re: agents

From: Xuan Shi <Xuan.Shi@mail.wvu.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 09:19:58 -0400
Message-Id: <s4c490de.037@WVUGW01.wvu.edu>
To: <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: <jpsequeira@netvisao.pt>, <public-sws-ig@w3.org>

Actually you just selectively and purposefully ignored those two
fundamental but fatal problems for OWL-S. If a service provider ONLY
provides ONE hotel reservation service, why does the provider need a
process.owl document? How does this service provider know that the
requester will use this specific service with the other 3, 4, 5 or 6
services, or the requester will just use this single service? If service
provider cannot handle and control the requester's behavior, then
process.owl or OWL-S is just a nonsense.



>>> Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu> 07/24/06 5:51 AM >>>

On Jul 23, 2006, at 7:29 PM, Xuan Shi wrote:

> OWL-S is a mixture of *service-related* issues. As Bijan said, if you
> are a service provider, normally "there won't be a lot of process to
> describe". This means, once a service provider describes IOPEs for the
> service, that's enough (service.owl, profile.owl).

Well, that's not what I said, and that's not what I meant, and you  
used selective quotation to achieve this misrepresentation.

In <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sws-ig/2006Jul/ 
0019.html>, I wrote:

"""(There's no requirement for separate files. ******IF YOUR SERVICE  
IS ATOMIC******, there
won't be a lot of process to describe).""" [emphasis added]

"If you are a service provider" is in no way a paraphrase of "if your  
service is atomic".

And it certainly doesn't mean that describing a services IOPEs for a  
process "is enough". I clearly was pointing out that a "process.owl"  
for an atomic process might be quite small, with the clear  
implication trat the profile might be quite bulky.

I expect a retraction of your culpable, yet stupid as you included  
them below, misrepresentation of my words.

As to the rest of your nonsense, I have no other comment but to note  
that it is both nonsense and completely unresponsive to the original  

Received on Monday, 24 July 2006 13:20:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:32:56 UTC