W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws@w3.org > October 2002

Re: DAML-S and OWL

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 08:05:21 -0400 (EDT)
To: Charlie Abela <abcharl@maltanet.net>
cc: <www-ws@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0210050755130.25621-100000@tux.w3.org>

On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Charlie Abela wrote:

> The DAML-S group has done useful work in this regards and their latest
> release of DAML-S 0.7 is imminent to be presented to the public. Though now
> that OWL is starting to become a reality, I have some questions as regards
> Web service descriptions.
> Is OWL enough when one speaks of Web service descriptions and integration? I
> think not. Correct if I am wrong.

It would help if you made more specific claims!

I would be suprised if OWL were to be the last word in Web-based
vocabulary description. And I would be dissapointed if we failed to
finalise an Ontology spec that progressed things beyond the capabilities
offered by RDFS.  Do you think OWL progresses the start of the art in this
area? Right now, the WebOnt OWL drafts show W3C's current thinking in that
area. If you believe OWL has significant problems as a basis for
service-oriented description, now would be a great time to send review
comments on OWL outlining the problems you see. When you ask 'is OWL
enough', it isn't clear whether you mean 'is OWL the final word on the
matter' vs something stronger like 'is OWL so ill-suited to the task as to
need a major redesign'. If you have such concerns, couching them in terms
of a specific example, with test case data and a draft OWL ontology would
be very helpful.

I remember some comments here w.r.t. OWL's Model Theory and a need with
DAML-S to reason more explicitly about time and change, state transitions
etc. Was that the sort of limitiation you're refering to?


> So is there going to be a similar effort to that done on DAML-S to come up
> with some sort of OWL-S?

If you're asking about W3C's plans, I would be pretty suprised if we did a
special purpose Ontology language for Web Services. If you're asking about
DARPA's DAML program or the Joint Committee that produced DAML+OIL, I've
no idea what the expectations are.

> Though I ask, whether starting work all-over again on such a task is
> necessary.
> Can someone comment on this please?

Only to say: if you think OWL doesn't quite work for Web Service apps,
that's important feedback; please make sure it reaches the WebOnt WG (see
feedback info in their Working Drafts).



Received on Saturday, 5 October 2002 08:05:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:05:09 UTC