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

RE: agents

From: Jorge Paulo Sequeira <jpsequeira@netvisao.pt>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 17:51:07 +0100
To: "'Mark Burstein'" <burstein@bbn.com>, <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E1G5K3X-00027k-MK@lisa.w3.org>
Thank you Mark, this is the kind of answer that may help me understanding
the owl-s usage. 


I really don't care about the Bijan-Xuai dispute. My question was not
intended to start a dispute between you guys.










From: public-sws-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sws-ig-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Mark Burstein
Sent: segunda-feira, 24 de Julho de 2006 16:21
To: jpsequeira@netvisao.pt; public-sws-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: agents


The full specification of IOPEs is done in the process model, not in the
Profiles are purely provided for the purposes of registering services with a
registry, to enable matching. Thus, the IOPE descriptions provided there may
not be as detailed in multiple ways as is required with the process model.
The process model must provide precise semantic correlates for all inputs
and outputs that are possible in the WSDL messages that they correspond to,
and must link these data to the corresponding preconditions and effects so
that a service requester can mechanically determine whether and how it will
provide the correct inputs and interpret the resulting outputs. 

The only reason that Xuan is assuming that one can do away with this is that
he is looking at only atomic services, and he has observed that the service
profile models have the same provision to describe IOPEs, not understanding
that their intended use and level of specificity was different. Service
profile IOPEs can be very incomplete with respect to what is required for
the client to correctly call the service. 

As to Jorge's original questions (which should have been answered without
this descent into nonsense)
What now?
What am I supposed to do with these files? Do I have to build my own agent
to query them? Are there APIs available on the community?

If you look at the materials on the OWL-S website ( www.daml.org/services
<http://www.daml.org/services> ) you will find pointers to some tools that
live mostly on semwebcentral.org. 
The OWL-S files are intended to be consumed by OWL-S client agents that are
then able to call the described services. So they must be available on the
web. The tools that exist (though clearly still inadequate for robust use)
include semantic matchmakers (that consume the service profiles) and
execution machinery (that consume the process and grounding). The agent that
you write must be able to select which web service to call (from those
recommended by a matchmaker, for example) and must be able to reason
logically about what information to provide to the selcted service by
matching what it was trying to do against the process model of the selected
service.  At a minimum, it must be able to match features of the task it
wants to perform against the semantic types of the input parameters of the
service, and produce the owl description of each input that can be
translated (by the grounding) into an element of a wsdl message. 
Whats the typical use for these files? How do I integrate this information
on my web server so agents can locate and understand the service?

At 09:19 AM 7/24/2006, Xuan Shi wrote:

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 Tuesday, 25 July 2006 10:22:37 UTC

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