Re: W3C and SWS

Dear merry and Xuan,

I think that a number of emails that people sent in respect to some of your
comments actually had all that you are suggesting in mind...you will find
numerous papers (google a bit :) in which the matchmaking (discovery),
composition (e.g. through planning and other techniques) etc have been
tackled seperately but there are others in which a holistic approach has
been taken...
as regards shared" ontology definitions, on the OWL-S site there are some
supplimentary ontologies such as the profilehierarchy and the like that has
such a goal, as regards the standardised interface that is another issue and
I think we cannot force people to use one service definition language rather
then another, nevertheless you will also find that people working on WSMO
has compared their stuff with OWL-S and also (correct me if i'm wrong) found
mappings between the two languages. Other efforts have done similar mappings
for e.g. from BPEL2OWL-S...
I think one has to be patient, things take time to clarify, integrate and
get accepted...

Charlie

On 10/19/06, merrychang79 <merrychang79@163.com> wrote:
>
>
> ->SWS as a whole system should have at least three
> components: a "shared" ontology definition on each service domain, a
> centralized service registry system that enforces such "shared" ontology
> definition (anyone who wants to register the service into the system, it
> has to agree with the semantic definition specified in that shared
> ontology definition), and a "standardized" interface to enable the
> dynamic invocation. The shared ontology definition may enable the
> dynamic service discovery and matchmaking through the centrailized
> registry to identify certain Web services that matches the search
> criteria. When the agent can identify a list of Web services, it can
> invoke anyone in that list without re-programming because all such
> services have a standardized interface. <-
>
> Absolutely agree what the Xuan has said. If SWS is only a car couldn't be
> used for any reason, we have to acknowledge that it's a faillure to some
> extent.
>
> Regards,
> Merry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> -----原始邮件-----
> 发件人:"Xuan Shi"
> 发送时间:2006-10-17 23:56:51
> 收件人:"dhavalkumar thakker"
> 抄送:",","" ,""
> 主题:Re: W3C and SWS
>
>
> Dear Dhavalkumar, Drs. Martin, Klusch, and others,
>
> First of all, I do want to apologize to all of you if what I posted
> recently in the list make you feel frustrated. Although that was not my
> intent, I know some words overstep the marks beyond academic discussion
> when they were misconstrued publically and disrespectfully. With my good
> faith to promote the research on semantic Web services, I do hope those
> whom I insulted and all others could forgive my inappropriate behavior
> and look forward to a more close cooperation in this community.
>
> Let me try to elaborate what I think about semantic Web services for
> your kind attention and comments. When we target the goal  of semantic
> Web services as the dynamic and automatic service discovery,
> matchmaking, composition and integration, SWS is a whole system like a
> car. We cannot say the brake is perfect, but the car cannot run. Or we
> cannot say the car runs fast and it has the best engine but it cannot
> stop. Or the car has world No. 1 battery but that car is a junk. And so
> on. It's the same view and logic to SWS.
>
> For this reason, we cannot just work on certain components of SWS, but
> have to consider how to make the whole systems functions correctly and
> appropriately. No matter how perfect each component is, if the car (SWS)
> does not function well, it may just look like a negative junk. However,
> when we see that the car functions well, this car may not have the best
> components.
>
> In my opinion, SWS as a whole system should have at least three
> components: a "shared" ontology definition on each service domain, a
> centralized service registry system that enforces such "shared" ontology
> definition (anyone who wants to register the service into the system, it
> has to agree with the semantic definition specified in that shared
> ontology definition), and a "standardized" interface to enable the
> dynamic invocation. The shared ontology definition may enable the
> dynamic service discovery and matchmaking through the centrailized
> registry to identify certain Web services that matches the search
> criteria. When the agent can identify a list of Web services, it can
> invoke anyone in that list without re-programming because all such
> services have a standardized interface.
>
> Again, I apologize to all of you in this community, especially to team
> members of OWL-S, WSMO, and SAWSDL, for those recent unhappy events I
> generated. I welcome any kind of criticism and advice from you
> publically or by private email contact. I hope my suggestion would show
> some positive points for attention and discussion.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Xuan
>
>
>
>
> >>> "dhavalkumar thakker" <dhavalkumar@xsmail.com> 10/17/2006 5:12 AM
> >>>
>
> I think Tim Berners Lee answered the question, didnt he?
>
> Dear shi,
>
> with all respect, if you find something is wrong, please suggest
> something which you
> think is right, inplace of just pointing out to stuff which you think
> is
> wrong...
> Because all we are getting from you is negative, negative and more
> negative...
>
>
>
> best regards,
>
> Dhavalkumar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 美 女 恐 怖 败 家 秀 ( 组 图 )
> 独 家 披 露 ! 小 资 女 人 8 个 绝 顶 隐 秘 的 趣 事 ( 组 图 )
> <http://adtaobao.allyes.com/main/adfclick?db=adtaobao&bid=600,597,58&cid=29985,198,1&sid=32501&show=ignore&url=http://www.taobao.com/vertical/lady/pro.php>