RE: What's the point in using OWL-S?

Hello

> On Behalf Of Drew McDermott
>  
> When you say, "But where's the big advantage in having an interface
> (in WSDL) defined or an annotated WSDL like WSDL-S?", it sounds like
> you're questioning WSDL.  So it's not Owl-S per se that you're having
> trouble with, but the whole semantic-web-services idea, right?

No, I do not question WSDL as description of the computing interface of a
service. In the chapter "5. Modeling Services as Processes" of OWL-S 1.1
there is written, that "[...is] To give a detailed perspective on how to
interact with a service, it can be viewed as a process." Therefore I
thought, that with OWL-S service providers can make some things explicit
that can not be expressed with pure WSDL.


> 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.

Sorry for the next question...  In the BravoAir Onoltogy (sub)goals then
are GetDesiredFlightDetails, BookFlight? Or is this a wrong assumption?
 
>  - 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.

Ok, than all service providers and client do have to agree on a common
ontology.

 
> [Note the qualification: "in my opinion."]

Thx
Gerhard

Received on Sunday, 4 June 2006 13:49:27 UTC