Re: Commercial/Real-world Semantic Web Services?

Luke,

If you agree that "True web services and websites are a different",
it's so easy to understand the definition of a Web-service specified by
W3C  @ http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/NOTE-ws-gloss-20040211/ 

In this glossary, when W3C define the concept of "Web service", it
said:

"There are many things that might be called "Web services" in the world
at large. However, for the purpose of this Working Group and this
architecture, and without prejudice toward other definitions, we will
use the following definition:

A Web service is a software system designed to support interoperable
machine-to-machine interaction over a network. It has an interface
described in a machine-processable format (specifically WSDL). Other
systems interact with the Web service in a manner prescribed by its
description using SOAP-messages, typically conveyed using HTTP with an
XML serialization in conjunction with other Web-related standards."

Forget that section "without prejudice toward other definitions", at
least (semantic) Web-sites are in those many things, not Web-services -
Web-service should at least have a WSDL interface, not Web interface, a
place for Web service integration/aggregation/mediation. 

Furthermore, what is a service-provider, and what is a
service-requester? A service provider provides services through WSDL
interfaces. A service requester consumes services through WSDL
interfaces. It's a P2P relationship, not a server/end-user
relationship.

Then we can see, OWL-S, or semantic-Web-based services, deliberately
keep misusing terminology to confuse people for years. They mixed up
their Web-sites with Web services to sell their modelings. 

OWL-S claimed clearly from 2001 to 2006 that - "By 'service' we mean
Web sites" -  it's wrong, right? as you know "True web services and
websites are a different". 

What's the goal of OWL-S? It's said again from 2001 to 2006 that "The
Semantic Web should enable users to locate, select, employ, compose, and
monitor Web-based services automatically." -  it's wrong, right? A Web
service is not a Web-based service.

Besides what they said in their theory, we can see what they did in
their practice. From this well-known tutorial
http://www.wsmo.org/TR/d17/resources/200507-ICWS/SWStutorial-iswc05.ppt

as well as other papers, demos, we can see they are really talking
about and dealing with Web-site. What is VTA on slide #63? By their
terminology, VTA is a service-provider. Unfortunately by W3C
specification on Web-service, VTA is only a service-requester, because
VTA consumes the true Web-services (FlightBooking and HotelBooking)
through WSDL interface. VTA is only a Web-based service provider target
the two end-users (Consumers ) on the Web. That's why I remind everyone
when Bijian boasts his "Web services", he may actually talking about
Web-sites. And that's why I suggested that OWL-S remove processModel
becasue it's designed for a Web-site (VTA), not a Web-service (either
FlightBooking or HotelBooking).

Who has been keeping misusing terminology to confuse people? OWL-S -
their service provider is not the same terminology used in Web-service
definition. Are they really interested in Web-site? No, they have
nothing about how to develop a Web-site. Then are they really interested
in Web-services? No, their tutorial has little about those two true
Web-servcies, FlightBooking and HotelBooking. What are they really
interested in? If we know what are their vested interests, the answer is
clear.

OWL-S, if not completely wrong, is problematic. Do they want to hear
any truth? They fear to see and acknowledge their problems. They have
little or no courage to face the questions and problems. Some of them
are eager at gossipping in the darkness while betrayed their partners
due to carelessness, rather than make correction to generate a more
appropriate theory to guide their practice. You already see that
gossiper yelled - ignore Xuan, he is a notorious  troll. Another one of
them said in this IG before that Xuan is an outsider (of us). However,
unfortunately they cannot ignore those questions and problems.

Until now, they have no courage to face the real world Web-services,
rather than any problems in real practice. In the past six years from
2001 to 2006, what we got from OWL-S are only those
Kindergarten-toy-like service models, buybook, buyticket, purchaseorder,
stokequote, etc. In 2007, if they want to play with some real world
Web-services, they may wish to try my old examples that are still living
in practice -
http://www.arcwebservices.com/services/v2006/AddressFinder.wsdl and
http://arcweb.esri.com/services/v2/AddressFinder.wsdl 

Anyone would like to identify which string data type actually contains
a hex code? Adding semantic annotations into these two WSDL documents?
OK, it may tell us this variable is a string and is a hex code. Is this
the goal of SWS? Do you think that stupid "agent" understand when this
variable = "A" or "C"  (a hex code), the agent knows what and how to do?
We need something more than those Kindergarten-toys.

At last, if you check the archives, you can find what I suggest is just
that - we need more standards/agreements/protocols to develop semantic
Web services, not avoid the need for agreement. However, the leading
roles of this IG don't believe that we cannot reach any agreement
because they believe any service provider has the absolute right to do
what s/he wants to do. They try to avoid the need for agreement - in
that case, they can find the value for their modelings.

Regards,

Xuan





>>> "Luke Steller" <Luke.Steller@infotech.monash.edu.au> 10/15/2006
11:08 AM >>>
Xuan,

I dont understand your preoccupation with the definition of a service.
True
web services and websites are a different. If thats a problem, just
use
SWS for web services. Use semantic web for web sites.

Sure, agreement is an issue but at least SW and SWS gives us a common
structure for agreement, which we did not have before.

Do you have work/suggestions for avoiding the need for agreement?

Luke




On 10/15/06, Xuan Shi <Xuan.Shi@mail.wvu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Michael Uschold concluded a general law in his paper "Where are the
> Semantics in the Semantic Web?" published by AI Magazine, 24 (3),
25--36,
> that
>
> "The more agreement there is, the less it is necessary to have
machine
> processable semantics." What are "machine processable semantics"?
Maybe
> Bijan's logic modelings?
>
> This means, if we have more agreements in this community, people
like
> Bijan will have nothing to do. And that why he ignored such issues
and keeps
> misleading, if not cheating, the world.
>
> In the history, most people believed that the earth was the center of
the
> universe. Eventually it's proved such an idea was wrong. But we all
know
> what happened in the history when someone told the truth. It's the
same in
> SWS community.
>
> I just hope that all people just don't believe such "authority" like
Bijan
> or something else, but have to have more critical and independent
spirit in
> "scientific" reesarch - pursue the truth, not the authority, as
those
> well-respected scientists may be wrong, and definitely can be wrong.
>
> If anyone would like to read this paper:
>
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/109560959/PDFSTART
,
> you can see how a Nobel Prize winner in 1940s, prevented those
different but
> correct approaches from discussion and publication in the history -
his
> students could only make corrections and published the result after
he died.
>
> In the history, even some well-respected "scientiests' wanted to
send
> those who against them to Mars. Today, someone(s) in this SWS-IG
just
> blocked my discussion and emails two times - they just repeated the
> historical events in nowadays.
>
> I actually don't care whether Bijan ignore me or not - my future life
and
> career will not depend on anyone in this community. But Bijan cares -
he
> fears about that when people know the truth and generate more
> agreements/standards/protocols, he might have to find somethign else
to do.
> If we know he has such obvious vested interest on his specialties
rather
> than agreement/standard/protocol, we can ignore him and his products.
And
> that why he told us that he "personally don't know of any
(successfully)
> commercial or production uses of OWL-S, WSMO, or the  like,..."
>
> When Bijian boasts his "Web services", ask him first whether he is
talking
> about a Web-site or not. When he boasts his modelings, just ask him
why and
> how can we use his modeling when we develop ''a" Web service, such as
the
> favorite "AirlineTicketing" or "HotelBooking" kind of services, then
we can
> understand he is actually talking about how to modeling a Web-site,
not that
> two real services. If Bijan would like to remove the process modeling
from
> OWL-S, I would welcome it, though there's not even a tiny bit of
evidence of
> that, alas. Sigh.
>
> As a "scientist", you can igore me or anyone who is againts you, but
you
> cannot ignore the problems and questions. As the chair of this IG,
you
> cannot fear that people who are against you will ask you questions.
At least
> in this country, the bi-partisan politics can teach you even the
President
> of US  cannot ignore the problems and questions from the other-side.
As a
> team leader, you have to learn a lot.
>
> Regards,
>
> Xuan
>
>
> >>> Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu> 10/13/2006 3:14 PM >>>
>
> And sigh, I meant that to be private, obviously. I fully expect a
> Xuanslought. Which I shall ignore. As I recommend to everyone. If
> Xuan Shi would like to change this dynamic, I would welcome it,
> though there's not even a tiny bit of evidence of that, alas. Sigh.
>
> Well, I might as well take this faux pas as an opportunity to point
> out that, contrary to certain fantasies:
>        <http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-arch/>
> is a *note*, not a recommendation. Just one more distortion
> exaggerated into a crusade.
>
> Which is *such* a good tag line!
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Luke Steller
PhD Candidate
Faculty of Information Technology
Monash University
A U S T R A L I A
=============================

Received on Sunday, 15 October 2006 20:25:56 UTC