- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 10:39:18 -0500
- To: Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org>
- Cc: SWS-IG <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
On Mar 21, 2006, at 7:40 AM, Carine Bournez wrote: > On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 06:59:30AM -0500, Bijan Parsia wrote: >> Also, while profiles in OWL-S are only OWL, preconditions and effects >> are parameterizable, as are input and output type (though they must be >> URI identified). >> >> Ok, that's just a bit of nitpicking...though it did jump out at me :) >> >> The real question is that WSDL-S, the current version, *does* define >> precondition and effect (for example) elements (to be children of >> operation elements). Are these ruled out of scope? > > yes, they are out of scope (per the SAWSDL WG charter) > they will be in scope of other discussions in other groups at some > point. I don't understand *why* they are out of scope? In terms of WSDL-S elements, what is *in* scope? Can you enumerate them please? >> (There are many many issues even when you agree on the langauges for >> expressing them, e.g., where they are to be evaluated. (Which might >> not >> be hard or could be very hard, depending.) >> >> Actually, WSDL-S seems to include hooks for most of the OWL-S profile, >> with reference to OWL-S....er...isn't this supposed to be >> controversial? What am I missing? > > Why would it be controversial? I don't know...I don't know why preconditions and effects are controversial either! Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 21 March 2006 15:39:28 UTC