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

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 -- 
>In the Ontology PSIG at OMG, we have been discussing the 
>relationship between ODM (the Ontology Definition Metamodel -- 
>, 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,
>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