- From: Martin Hepp (UniBW) <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:22:58 +0200
- To: semantic-web at W3C <semantic-web@w3c.org>, goodrelations@ebusiness-unibw.org
- Message-ID: <48C7BC22.4080201@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Dear all: There has been the valuable suggestion to add lightweight support for attaching related REST or SOAP services URIs to the GoodRelations ontology (http://purl.org/goodrelations/). On one hand, the benefit of this is clear; one can easily link to invocable functionality from an offering, a price specification, or any other element. On the other hand it is also clear that we should not try to reinvent the wheel and replicate all the ongoing works on vocabularies for describing Web Services. Prior to implementing such an extension, I kindly ask for feedback on the following proposal - thanks in advance for any comments. (Authors of other vocabularies may face similar requests.) Background: GoodRelations has four key conceptual elements: a) BusinessEntity, b) Offering, c) ProductOrService, and d) Web Resource. The first three ones are explicitly defined. As for Web Resource, we assume they are instances of rdfs:Resource and use the rdfs:seeAlso property for linking the actual conceptual entities (business entities, offerings, product instances, etc.) to Web Resources that contain a human-readable description or similar. This is why there is no class “Web Resource” in the GoodRelations ontology. Now, in my opinion, SOAP or REST Web Services are a proper specialization of rdfs:Resource. Thus, we plan to simply define a new property gr:relatedWebService rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:seeAlso (There could be further specializations of this gr:relatedWebService property, based on functional or business-wise distinctions, but we have no plans to define those in the generic GoodRelations vocabulary.) This property will allow attaching a related Web service to any conceptual entity (offering, price specification, business entity, etc.), without duplicating current efforts of modeling Web Services descriptions. We would also be neutral to any such competing efforts. At the same time, any existing or upcoming vocabulary for Web Services could be used in combination with GoodRelations, because the respective association can be made via the Web Service Entity URI values associated with the gr:relatedWebService property (Thanks to Kingsley Idehen from OpenLink Software for his thoughts on this!). Are there any objections / concerns? Best wishes Martin ------------------------------------------------------- martin hepp e-business and web science research group bundeswehr university munich e-mail mhepp@computer.org skype mfhepp web http://www.heppnetz.de GoodRelations: A a lightweight yet sophisticated vocabulary Semantic Web-based e-commerce 1. Project page http://purl.org/goodrelations/ 2. Ontology http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1 3. Specification (via client-side rendering) http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1 3. User's Guide http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/primer/
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2008 12:24:10 UTC