- From: Charlie Abela <charles.abela@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:24:17 +0100
- To: klusch@dfki.de
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
- Message-ID: <5908cca00610300224u354da1c1t27203c82b6306528@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Matthias, thanks for your reply...though I think I was misunderstood in my intent.. I totally agree with the view that the group is taking vis-a-vis the different technologies and languages.. My intention was to get some sound feedback about the raised issues...such as whether people are working on these lines, whether prototypes exists that consider such direction, the feasiblility of going into that direction etc.. for instance it would be nice to have a list of all known tools (in this case matchmakers)..I have visited Semantic Web central site but i don't know of any complete list of available tools.. kind regards Charlie On 10/28/06, Matthias Klusch <Matthias.Klusch@dfki.de> wrote: > > > dear charles, > pls let me clarify one important point here that reappears through > out the past messages: the planned s3 contest of avaialable SWS > matchmakers > is not intended to *promote* some particular technology but to check > their > feasibility. pls note that there *are* technologies out there already > for which tools have been built, which in turn have to be tested. > since at the moment there are more owl-s matchmakers availabel than for > wsml, > we start with them. however, as soon as we have also a wsmo-test > collection, > we will test the matchmakers devoted to this technology also. > in any case, one has to start from somewhere, > or leave it and forget the whole thing to politics.... > > cordial regards, matthias > > > On Oct 28, 2006 11:01 PM, Charles Petrie <petrie@stanford.edu> wrote: > > > Hi Matthias, > > Let me just re-enforce what Holger has said. The point of our > > collection of test problems is not to promote a particular > > technology such as OWL-S, and this seems to be exactly the > > point of your testbed. So I don't think our contests are > > compatible. > > > > I understand your problems with your testbed and your desire to have > > the community contribute. We have exactly the same situation. > > > > And we'd love to have some OWL-S contributors to ours! > > > > Best regards, > > Charles > > -- > > http://www-cdr.stanford.edu/~petrie > > > > Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:28:55 +0200 > > From: Matthias Klusch <klusch@dfki.de> > > X-Accept-Language: de-de, de > > Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org, Emanuele Della Valle <dellava@cefriel.it>, > > Charles Petrie <petrie@stanford.edu>, > > "'Michal Zaremba'" <michal.zaremba@deri.org> > > > > Hi Holger, > > > > measuring the traditional r/p performance is one way, and > > has its well known deficiencies and strengths. > > > > Holger Lausen schrieb: > > > > > Hi Matthias, > > > > > > I have realized that quite some effort was invested to create the > > > OWLS-TC, however as far as I am able to understand the descriptions, > > > I > > > find the R/P evaluation not very expressive. This opinion is mainly > > > based up on the way the relevance sets are defined and the modeling > > > that > > > has been chosen. > > well, the point in here is that we had to start from the very scratch. > > we are pretty much aware of the limits of the test collection as is, > > and > > this is exactly the motivation to improve on it by asking the > > community > > and others to help; otherwise the justified critic is a cyclic one > > (it's bad therfore i do not join, therefore it remains bad ad > > infinitum: > > bty, exactly the same experience has been made by the IR community > > at the very early stage of TREC development). > > > > > From the textual description I can completely understand why this > > > service is in the relevance set, however I have the following > > > issues: > > > - You choose to capture the semantics of the service by > > > characterizing > > > its inputs and outputs as OWL concepts. While I agree that this is a > > > viable way, there are also other options. > > that's true, but, sorry, actually leads us to nowhere, since OWL-S > > bases > > on OWL. of course you can use a different SDL such as WSML, > > but OWLS-TC is a test collection for OWL-S matchmakers. > > we are also trying to build one for WSMO-MX, as hard as it was for > > OWLS-MX.... maybe eventually this time someone will join us in this > > effort (sic!) the same problem as ever. > > > > > - why are not all aspects of the request formally encoded, e.g. "... > > > but > > > it does not want to rent a car" > > in part because the collection was quickly developed (see also below) > > and in part because it is not possible to have conditioned relations > > between I/O parameters such as in WSML. but this is known for some > > time. > > > > > - The semantic degree of match in the relevance set is "failed". > > > Since > > > OWL uses an open world semantics and the ontologies do not state > > > that > > > a report and a price are disjoint it should at least be an > > > intersection match? > > > - You have invested some time in modeling the ontologies however, > > > why > > > did you decide to keep them incomplete? E.g. it could be easy > > > modeled that a price is a part of a report. > > you are absolutely right, but i beg for your kind understanding that > > this collection was developed initially very fast to get some > > preliminary test results of our matchamker - there was nothing at > > all, not even the smallest test collection for owl-s available. > > as aa conxequence, too much work causes some failures; we want to > > improve on the work, but need help as we only have limited human > > resources. > > anyway, thanks for the feedback, I would definitely appreciate more of > > it from more people from the community to push the joint building of a > > service retrieval test collection :-) > > > > > As yet we do not have any submission that uses OWL-S. However all > > > submission are publicly available. You might for example want to > > > take a > > > solution for the shipment discovery that has been done using > > > F-Logic: > > > > > > > http://sws-challenge.org/2006/submission/polimi-cefriel-submission/discovery-scenario/ > > > > thanks, but unfortunately this does not help us here for > > our purpose of the s3 contest with focus on owl-s matchmakers. > > but it could be of help for preparing the test of our WSMO-MX > > matchmaker (using ontobroker for the f-logic reasoning). > > anyway, i see the performance based contest of matchmakers and > > your use case based contest as perfectly complementary even from > > different views. > > > > cordial regards, matthias > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Dr. Matthias Klusch > > German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence > > Stuhlsatzenhausweg 3 > > 66123 Saarbruecken, Germany > > Phone: +49-681-302-5297, Fax: +49-681-302-2235 > > http://www.dfki.de/~klusch/, klusch@dfki.de > > __________________________________________________ > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Dr Matthias Klusch > German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence > Stuhlsatzenhausweg 3, 66123 Saarbruecken, Germany > phone: +49-682-3025297 > web: http://www.dfki.de/~klusch > -------------------------------------------------- > > > >
Received on Monday, 30 October 2006 10:24:29 UTC