Re: Re: OWL-S question: multiple atomic processes

On 11/29/06, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2006, at 10:22 AM, Massimo Paolucci wrote:
>
> > I have not completely understood Jo's problem, but my impression is
> > that what  Jo is really after are three very different services.
>
> Yes, as she stated up front. She wants to pull them together *in
> spite* of them being different.

That's true but I am actually male, so it's "he" instead of "she" ;-)

What I am after is an end-user's perception of a service. To an
end-user getting spelling suggestions, searching and getting cached
pages are all part of Google's search service, despite them being very
different services.

> "Service" is used differently in OWL-S and in WSDLland....a WSDL
> "service" can contain any number of completely unrelated operations.
>
> > Wouldn't be better just to define three services with three
> > different process models and profiles?
>
> That was the result of the conversion from WSDL, but it doesn't meet
> her needs.
>
> > My rule of thumb when I write an OWL-S description is that if I
> > really need disjunctions in the Profile, the underlying services
> > are different.
>
> Yes, but if you want to say something about all of them "at once",
> e.g., that they are offered by the same provider and that provider
> has a certain privacy policy, then it's a bit inconvenient. The
> choice trick is not the happiest, obviously, but I believe Jo was
> going for a "ServiceCollection" approach anyway and was just curious
> about how the Choice trick would work out.

Indeed, I was wondering how the profile would look like when using the
choice trick.

Concerning stating that they came from the same provider, I think that
in fact you could link the provider information to the same
individuals for each one of the three OWL-S processes.

Thanks again for your help guys!

Cheers,

-- Jo

Received on Wednesday, 29 November 2006 11:47:23 UTC