- From: Xuan Shi <Xuan.Shi@mail.wvu.edu>
- Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 15:41:45 -0400
- To: <public-sws-ig@w3.org>, <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
I have to say, what Dr. McDermott said can just demonstrate that OWL-S may be useful in the stage of service integration/aggregation, for example, in case when developers or requesters look for multiple services (reserve hotel or rental car, book aireline ticket, etc.), supposed such services are semantically well described and defined before a reasoning system can do matchmaking and composition. But what is the goal of SWS for service providers? Can we say service providers only have the responsibility to describe the meaning, or semantics, of the service? Can service providers have any control on service integration? I don't think so. It is for this reason that I just said, OWL-S misleads this group for SWS. OWL-S may be helpful as Dr. McDermott suggested. But those points are for application developers or service requesters. For service providers and this IG, I have to suggest that the goal of SWS focus on describing the meaning or semantics of certain kinds of services, such as what are the service semantics of hotel reservation service, rental car service, hotel reservation service, etc. How to do service matchmaking and aggregation/mediation is not the business of service providers and this IG. W3C should separate the SWS architecture by differentiating the responsibility of service provider vs. service requester. The mixure approach like OWL-S is not advantageous for further development. When we focus on the server-side responsibility to define service semantics, then we can see the importance of agreement and standard in this process. Regards, Xuan >>> Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu> 06/03/06 12:16 PM >>> In my opinion, the place where Owl-S may be useful is when several web services are needed to solve a problem stated in terms that don't mention web services (as such) at all. The problem might be to reserve a room and an airplane flight for a conference at a certain location and time. In order to solve this problem, a reasoning system needs to find web services that can achieve subgoals that the problem comprises. Owl-S provides a framework for connecting two things: - At the abstract level, expressing what subgoals are achieved by message exchange with a web service. - At the concrete level, expressing how messages are encoded using (e.g.) SOAP The ontology-matching problem enters into this picture, but not as the central problem. [Note the qualification: "in my opinion."] -- Drew McDermott Yale University Computer Science Department
Received on Saturday, 3 June 2006 19:42:07 UTC