- From: Katia Sycara <katia@cs.cmu.edu>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:47:57 -0500
- To: 'Ugo Corda' <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, "'Champion, Mike'" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Ugo, thanks, yes I followed the cross-ontological reasoning discussion In the public-sws-ig. Thanks, Katia -----Original Message----- From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ugo Corda Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 3:37 PM To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: RE: WS Architectural Loose Ends / Outstanding issues > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Katia Sycara [mailto:katia@cs.cmu.edu] > > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:34 PM > > To: 'Champion, Mike'; www-ws-arch@w3.org > > Cc: katia@cs.cmu.edu > > Subject: RE: WS Architectural Loose Ends / Outstanding issues > > > > Mike, yes, this is the minimum that should be said. > > We may want to say more (e.g. perhaps bringing common > > ontologies into the picture --I find it very probable that > > industries would want to define and utilize such ontologies > > extensively). > > I find it very probable that they will spend years debating the "real" > meaning of common terms that everyone understands intuitively <duck>. > Another problem is that the set of ontologies understood by different services/requesters might be different, so you have the problem of reasoning across them. This issue was recently discussed on the SWS-IG list (see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sws-ig/2003Dec/thread.html, the "cross-ontologies reasoning" thread). Ugo
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2004 15:49:29 UTC