W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-semann@w3.org > June 2006


From: <Pierre.CHATEL@fr.thalesgroup.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 15:03:48 +0200
Message-ID: <487273D52219D811B209000347AE974A033A6C7E@hermes.wins>
To: public-ws-semann@w3.org
Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org

Hi List,

This email as been posted to both public-ws-semann@w3.org and public-sws-ig@w3.org 
since public-sws-ig is a new list with low traffic and I would like to get
a maximum of opinions on my issue.

I'm working at Thales Land & Joint Systems (http:// 
www.thalesgroup.com/land-joint/) in the "Software Core for Computer- 
based systems" group.
My current task is to work on integrations of semantics into web- 
services descriptions. Which brought my attention to the current
work done on WSDL-S/SAWSDL. As industrials, the pragmatic approach of 
bundling semantics into existing standards such as WSDL seems very  
interesting compared to the previous work (like DAML-S or OWL-S) that  
defined a whole new service description language and where tied to a  
specific ontology language.

My main concern at the moment is that, as much as i like the ideas  
behind SAWSDL, I'm having a real hard time finding exhaustive  
information on the subject. More precisely, I'm trying to create a  
correct mapping of SAWSDL into UDDI with the following characteristics:
- It must be based on the WSDL 2.0 version of SAWSDL
- It must provide a way to make efficient requests (optimized mapping)
- It must be useful and KISS (keep it simple and stupid :-)

The first point is giving me an hard time, since there is no such  
thing as a WSDL 2.0 mapping into UDDI... writing one is not so hard,  
in fact I think I already managed to write most of it. But making one  
which is useful and make use of the new constructs in WSDL 2.0 is an  
other thing :-) (Also, maybe my mapping would interest someone here)

The second one make me ask this question:

Do you think I should map the type-related semantic annotations into  
Since I'm not writing an UDDI plugin/proxy or UDDI-bundled matchmaker, the  
only informations that I would be able to make semantic queries from  
is the semantic information that is binded to operations (with the  
modelReference attribute for instance) and interface categorization
Because, since it doesn't have a semantic matchmaker, the UDDI registry will not
be able to interpret the request I gave him and rank the services on the basis  
of semantic similarity. The writers of WSDL-S did have the same  
opinion since they developed a similar 3-phase algorithm in "Adding  
Semantics to Web Services Standards".

But there is an other point of view: would it be useful to make exact  
matchmaking on the inputs/outputs (i.e. find services who provide  
operations with the exact same inputs and/or outputs semantics that  
the ones in the search query) ? If it's the case, it may be useful to  
"hard-map" this kind of semantic information into UDDI structures  
(tModels and such) because the anwser could be computed in a time  
efficient manner (without the need to parse each and every wsdl file  
that resulted from the first phase of the query). Please give me your  
opinions on the subject or point me to related documentation.

Thanks in advance
Pierre Chatel
SC2 - Software Core for Computer-based systems
1-5, Avenue Carnot / BC4
91883 Massy CEDEX
Tel 01 69 75 30 57
Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2006 16:49:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:13 UTC