Re: OWL-S

Hi, Michael -

You might also like to look at the SOA Ontology being developed by 
The Open Group. You can find the current draft at 
http://www.opengroup.org/projects/soa-ontology/

This ontology captures business and technical concepts related to 
services and SOA in a consistent way. We believe that it is 
compatible with OWL-S. It has been exposed for comment outside The 
Open Group, and comments have been received from a number of sources, 
including OASIS and the OMG. We are working to resolve those 
comments, and hope to have a final version of the ontology before long.

At 19:51 14/11/2008, Elisa F. Kendall wrote:

>Hi Michael and all,
>
>While I'm not sure of the status of this work at W3C, there is a 
>more general effort going on currently at OMG, under an RFP called 
>UPMS (UML Profile and Metamodel for Services -- 
>http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?soa/06-09-09).
>In the Ontology PSIG at OMG, we have been discussing the 
>relationship between ODM (the Ontology Definition Metamodel -- 
>http://www.omg.org/spec/ODM/1.0/Beta3/), and this UPMS effort.
>Yesterday I participated in a telecon with the UPMS submission team, 
>and we agreed that at the OMG Santa Clara meeting we will discuss 
>changes to the UPMS submission to put the "hooks" in to use ODM for 
>service description, classification, etc., and also to initiate work 
>on an RFP to develop a service description ontology.  The ontology 
>would be published in the form of an ODM-based model (i.e., a UML 
>model with ODM stereotypes and constraints for RDF and OWL applied, 
>in the form of an XMI file), as well as native RDF and/or OWL, and 
>would be made publicly available via the OMG web site.  It would 
>also be well integrated with related work currently ongoing at 
>OMG.  David Martin (SRI) and I are presenting in the Analysis and 
>Design Task Force session at the Santa Clara meeting (Dec. 10 -- see 
>link on the OMG home page) on exactly this topic.  Participants 
>include not only SRI (who are among the primary authors of OWL-S) 
>but also some of the folks who have championed WSMO.
>The OMG meeting itself is open, as is the ADTF working group 
>session, fyi.  The SOA ABSIG meets on the Tuesday, and our Ontology 
>PSIG meets Thursday morning, all in the same week.  You would be 
>more than welcome to join us and share requirements.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Elisa
>
>Michael Lang(Jr.) wrote:
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I am working on a project and one of our goals is to semantically 
>>describe software services.  I believe that OWL-S is the best 
>>vocabulary for doing this, or at least the best place to start, but 
>>I am curious as to why it has not become a W3C recommendation 
>>yet.  Does anyone know the reason for this?
>>
>>Also, has anyone done any work in adding performance metrics about 
>>a service to an OWL-S description?  We will definitely need to 
>>tackle this problem and any advice/lessons learned would be much appreciated.
>>
>>
>>Michael Lang
>>
>>--
>>Revelytix, Inc.
>>
>>phone: 410-584-0009 (office)
>>           443-928-3782 (cell)
>>skype: michael.allen.lang.jr
>>aim: MikeJrRevelytix

Received on Sunday, 16 November 2008 11:56:50 UTC