- From: Xuan Shi <Xuan.Shi@mail.wvu.edu>
- Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:37:20 -0400
- To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, "Ed Addison" <ed@teradisc.org>
- Cc: "Minsu Jang" <minsu.jang@gmail.com>, <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
I'd like to suggest that when we see anyone is talking about SWS or WS in this community and in the world, first of all, we must be especially careful about whether s/he is talking about a Web-site or not. W3C has such doubt and said in 2004 "There are many things that might be called "Web services" in the world at large". For this reason, we have to open our eyes and examine carefully and independently not only what has been said in those papers, comments and documentations, but also what has been done in practice, tutorials, demos. So, what are Web services and how to implement Web services? The answer is in W3C documentation "Web Services Architecture" @ http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-arch/ - clearly Web services are NOT equal to Web sites and unfortunately it seems most people in SWS-IG ignored its emphasis on *agreement* - "The important point is that the parties MUST AGREE on the semantics, regardless of how that is achieved." SWS then has to be a joint venture of all participants in the community that cooperate and negotiate to agree, generate and then share the "shared" ontologies for different domains of services. Considering the general goal of SWS as the automatic and dynamic service discovery, matchmaking, composition and invocation, I have to say SWS should be a systematic and synthetic project. Each sub-system or sub-goal has to interact tightly with the others. We may not only target one of the sub-goals and work on it because the result may not be able to comply with the requirements for other sub-goals. For example, whether the result of service composition will enable, or be relevant/helpful to, the dynamic service invoation. For this reason, W3C might have to be the coordinator to handle such synthetic SWS. Regards, Xuan >>> Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu> 10/12/2006 5:07 AM >>> On Oct 9, 2006, at 6:13 PM, Ed Addison wrote: > I would suggest that those commercial applications that use > semantic web, or semantic web-like technology would not necessarily > advertise that that's what they are doing. The semantic web is a > tool, not a product or market. SInce the semantic web is in its > infancy, commercial applications that do use semantic web > technology most likely use a significantly scoped down subset of > it. The semantic web is more likely to slowly infiltrate various > information products and web services rather than suddenly get > commercial adoption. Might be tough to find or even classify the > cases for your study. Good luck. One must be especially careful about such suggestions. While it is true that companies using SWS tech may not have a reason to advertize that (esp. if it is not their product!), it runs a bit close to the "there *is* stuff going on *because* we don't know about it". There are enough people interested that I would expect *some* information to leak out. In any case, it's best to be humble :)
Received on Thursday, 12 October 2006 15:37:45 UTC