- From: Xuan Shi <Xuan.Shi@mail.wvu.edu>
- Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 00:28:46 -0400
- To: <gerhard.austaller@o2online.de>, <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
The OWL-S, as well as WSMO, not only provides the description of a service, but also stresses and focuses more on the process of service aggregation (or mediation in case for WSMO). Here we see the problem. Service providers only have the responsibility to provide a semantic description about the service. How service requesters use the service is beyond the control of service providers. When service requesters, or application developers, utilize multiple services to accomplish a series of tasks, they have to deal with service aggregation or mediation processes. For this reason, OWL-S and WSMO mislead the group by blurring the focus of SWS research, i.e. to describe the semantics of services (service providers' responsibility), other than to describe the semantics of service integration (service requesters' responsibility). WSDL-S adds semantic annotation into WSDL. In any W3C document, WSDL is defined as a document of service interface. Thus the semantics of service interface is not the same as the semantics of service, because the same service can have different interfaces (see living examples at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-semann/2006Apr/0029.html) As for your question, "do we assume that all airlines agree on one ontology and further also on the process how to do something?" When I discussed with Jacek off-the-list, he said that service providers have absolute right to define their own service interface, definition, ontology, semantics, etc. and, service providers do not need to care about how requesters will use the service (I stressed on a requester-oriented approach). Thus you see, there is NO agreement on the ontology or semantic definition, and that's why people have to use the logic-based SW technique to guess the meaning of the service ontology/semantics for matchmaking. Without agreement and standardization, we can see the problems as I discussed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sws-ig/2006Apr/0048.html At its best, what a programmer can gain from an owl-s description may be a service composition document which is supposed to tell you how to chain varied services together for certain tasks/goals. But the remaining question is how can you invoke the services according to such a composition result as I discussed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sws-ig/2006Apr/0045.html I hope you can get more responses from others in this group soon in the following days. Best wishes, Xuan >>> "Gerhard Austaller" <gerhard.austaller@o2online.de> 06/02/06 12:30 AM >>> Hi I still have not understood what exactly an agent can achieve with the owl-s description of a service. Let's take the Bravo Air example. For an agent to book a ticket it has to "understand" the concepts used there. But where's the big advantage in having an interface (in WSDL) defined or an annotated WSDL like WSDL-S? I admit having the exact order of steps defined to achieve something is a step in the right direction... Now I want my agent also to book a ticket at another airline. So if this airline uses another ontology that ontology also as to be understandable to the agent made by an programmer. So do we assume that all airlines agree on one ontology and further also on the process how to do something? Do I miss something? Can please somebody explain or give me pointers what's a programmer can gain from an owl-s description? Thanks Gerhard
Received on Saturday, 3 June 2006 15:00:15 UTC