RE: Web Services Architecture Document

Ugo, 
 If you define an X as a Web service then, since a Web service is a service
and since a service is a resource, then this X has to have a URI (this is a
very simple example, but if this X does not have a URI, then it is not
compliant with what the wsa document calls a Web service). 
  --Katia
   

-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 4:44 PM
To: Stephane Fellah; Katia Sycara; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Web Services Architecture Document

Stephane,
I understand the idea of "automating the search of services based on the
agent criteria and perform semantic translation of parameters between
the services" (the UDDI TC has being discussing exactly this kind of
issues recently). I just don't see how all that would relate to the WSA
ontology and leverage it.

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephane Fellah [mailto:fellah@pcigeomatics.com] 
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 1:35 PM
> To: Ugo Corda; Katia Sycara; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Web Services Architecture Document
> 
> 
> Ugo,
> 
> I have been actively involved in different OpenGIS web 
> services testbeds 
> (http://www.opengis.org/initiatives/?iid=79). The goal is to 
> enable the integration of different information communities 
> using geospatial information and services (map, feature, 
> coverage, processing services...).
> 
> One of the most obvious need for a web service ontology is to 
> enable web-agent to perform automatic (read intelligent) web 
> service discovery and choregraphy of services. 
> Let's suppose you want to perform a complex task such as 
> create a 3D map on a specific area. Your 3D Map agent will 
> need to find the map from some Web Map Server (WMS) and the 
> DEM from a Web Coverage Service (WCS) and use a Web Terrain 
> Service (WTS) to create a 3D view from the data retrieved 
> from the WMS and WCS. 
> To be able to automate this task, there are two approaches. 
> The first one is a syntaxic one. You define XML schema to 
> describe each service and data information. The problem with 
> this approach ? It does not scale. You have to write code to 
> parse each schema and make semantic mapping  between the 
> terms of different XML schema. With the floraison of XML 
> schema standards that exist out there, you can be sure that 
> integration of different systems is impossible. 
> The second approach is a semantic approach , which deal with 
> heterogeity. You describe the services and data with metadata 
> using a common metamodel (read RDF/OWL). Using inferencing 
> and rules and common upper ontologies, you can automate the 
> search of services based on the agent criteria and perform 
> semantic translation of parameters between the services. WSDL 
> is far to be sufficient to be able to automate service 
> chaining. In my scenario, you need to find geospatial 
> information within a specific location. The information 
> generated by the service will need to be provided in 
> compatible formats for the WTS. 
> 
> To enable the semantic web, all the backend services and 
> information needs to be viewed by agent as RDF graphs. Using 
> semantic protocol, the web becomes a huge semantic bus and 
> expert system. Instead of relying on specific protocols and 
> syntax, the agents are communicating using semantic information. 
> 
> Best regards
>  
> Stephane Fellah
> Senior Software Engineer
>  
> PCI Geomatics
> 490, Boulevard St Joseph
> Hull, Quebec
> Canada J8Y 3Y7
> Tel: 1 819 770 0022 Ext. 223
> Fax 1 819 770 0098
> Visit our web site:  www.pcigeomatics.com
>  
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] 
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 2:47 PM
> To: Katia Sycara; Stephane Fellah; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Web Services Architecture Document
> 
> 
> Katia,
> I am trying to think of examples of how your idea of spec 
> compliance verification could be applied.
> 
> Are you saying, for example, that if the WSDL 2.0 spec were 
> to be rewritten using OWL, then I could run a compliance 
> verifier against the WSA ontology and find out that WSDL 2.0 
> lacks intermediaries support? This seems rather far fetched to me.
> 
> Ugo
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Katia Sycara [mailto:katia@cs.cmu.edu]
> > Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 11:34 AM
> > To: Ugo Corda; 'Stephane Fellah'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Cc: katia@cs.cmu.edu
> > Subject: RE: Web Services Architecture Document
> > 
> > 
> > Ugo, for one, as Stephen suggests the OWL formalization can 
> be used as 
> > an upper ontology for the work of groups such as the OWL-S 
> coalition 
> > or the Semantic Web Services Language committee (SWSL) and Semantic 
> > Web Services Architecture committee (SWSA). The upper OWL ontology 
> > could be further specialized by these groups, constraints could be 
> > added etc. In a long term view, one could imagine that if a 
> new spec 
> > for example were to be expressed in such an ontology, then
> > inferences about compliance of the new spec with the 
> > architecture could be inferred.  Cheers, Katia
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
> > Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 11:34 AM
> > To: Katia Sycara; Stephane Fellah; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Web Services Architecture Document
> > 
> > What I have not been able to figure out so far is the "then what?" 
> > part. In other words, what is the goal for the OWL formalization of 
> > WSA (besides being a showcase of semantic technologies)? Is there a 
> > plan to do anything with that formalization? What kind of results 
> > would you like to achieve once you apply a reasoning engine to that 
> > information?
> > 
> > Ugo
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]
> 
> > > On Behalf Of Katia Sycara
> > > Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 7:52 AM
> > > To: 'Stephane Fellah'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > > Cc: katia@cs.cmu.edu
> > > Subject: RE: Web Services Architecture Document
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Staphane,
> > >  We are working on an OWL formalization of the concepts and
> > > relationships in the Web Services Architecture. It will 
> be published
> 
> > > along with the final Working Group product by end of next 
> week.  As 
> > > for OWL-S it is not a Working Group of the W3C, though some of us 
> > > would like it to become one.
> > >   Cheers, Katia
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]
> 
> > > On Behalf Of Stephane Fellah
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 5:27 PM
> > > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: Web Services Architecture Document
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I have a couple of questions related to the scope of your working
> > > group. Is there any chance to see an OWL formalization of the 
> > > different concepts and relationships exposed in the WS 
> Architecture 
> > > Document ? What would be the next step for W3C : define again new 
> > > XML schemas (syntaxic
> > > approach) or using semantic web technologies (OWL). I clearly
> > > favor the last option because the syntaxic approach is too 
> > > brittle to scale on the web. The OWL-S effort seems to 
> > > address the same problem, but uses different terms. Is there 
> > > any harmonization effort between the working groups ? 
> > > 
> > > Thanks in advance.
> > >  
> > > Best regards
> > >  
> > > Stephane Fellah
> > > Senior Software Engineer
> > >  
> > > PCI Geomatics
> > > 490, Boulevard St Joseph
> > > Hull, Quebec
> > > Canada J8Y 3Y7
> > > Tel: 1 819 770 0022 Ext. 223
> > > Fax 1 819 770 0098
> > > Visit our web site:  www.pcigeomatics.com
> > >  
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
>

Received on Friday, 30 January 2004 16:56:12 UTC