SAWSDL in WXMO-MX [was Re: Commercial/Real-world Semantic Web Services?]

On Oct 16, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Matthias Klusch wrote:

> dear bijan
>
> Bijan Parsia schrieb:

First time anyone accused me of *schrieb*ing before. At least in  
public :)

>> Folks,
>> Please can we not all pile in. I fully understand the frustration  
>> and  the temptation, but it's not going to help. At least, if the  
>> past is  any indicator.
>> This was the point of my sending private advice...so it wouldn't   
>> clutter up the list. Obviously, that failed because of a bit of  
>> reply- list ineptness on my part :)
>> I strongly suggest that the best response at the moment is to  
>> talk  about other things. Filter out messages you know are a waste  
>> of time  and move on.
>> I know it's discouraging and tiresome. Sorry. I'll post a few  
>> things  that I hope get us doing something more interesting!  
>> SWASDL! We need  a review!
>> Matthias, given that Jacek is at DERI, I take it that WSM* is  
>> going  to play nice with SWASDL. Any comments? Issues?
>
> good question :-)
>
> i am currently busy with the finishing off our wsmo-mx matchmaker  
> which we hopefully will make available at semwebcentral soon.

Cool. Good luck. Is this with a mediator/broker architecture, or is  
it more direct?

> well, from what i have seen so far about trying to partially marry
> WSML with SWASDL (WSDL-S) that might be interesting for industrial
> practice. however, as far as i can (quickly) read from the working  
> draft
> of SWASDL, it provides some flexibility in basically attaching  
> anything
> you want (semantic models by modelREference) but leaving the agent  
> alone
> when it comes to formal reasoning upon these models to find  
> grounded relations and dependencies between heterogeneous concepts  
> and data;
> the xsd (schema lifting and lowering) mappings are merely syntactic at
> data type level - means at the same level as WSDL analyzer / mapping
> tools.

Yes. If I read you right, this has long been my complaint about  
SAWSDL. They're just hooks without any semantics to the hooks. This  
worries me (and I don't see the advantage over plain WSDL  
extensibility).

For example, if I use a modelReference...what does it *mean*? Is that  
*in* the model as well? E.g.,:
	http://www.w3.org/TR/sawsdl/#AnnotatingOperations

"""The annotation of the operation element carries a reference to a  
concept in a semantic model that provides a high level description of  
the operation, specifies its behavioral aspects or includes other  
semantic definitions."""

It does all this? Any of this? I think of high level descriptions as  
being pretty vague whereas a behavioral specification is much tighter  
(is this in terms of preconditions and effects?).

But this is a disagreement with the basic premise of SWASDL and WSDL- 
S: I don't see that it does anything that would permit substantive  
interop. I.e., all the work is left to d.

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 17:13:58 UTC