Re: FW: BPEL2DAMLS developed

What does all this translator work say about overlap of these
standards?  

Jun Shen wrote:
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jun Shen [mailto:jshen@it.swin.edu.au]
> Sent: Thursday, 30 October 2003 3:49 PM
> To: 'Sheila McIlraith'
> Subject: RE: BPEL2DAMLS developed
> 
> Dear Sheila,
> 
> That's exactly concerns we're perplexed about.
> 
> First we definitely use Process Model.
> 
> Second, we have kept watching the progress of all involved languages, our
> current version is supporting BPEL, WSDL(with extensions for BPEL) and
> DAML-S by July 2003. When we were developing, we argued about instance or
> class level mapping for processes/activities. Unfortunately, we understood
> DAML-S 0.9 as treating them as classes (CongoProcess example). This sounds
> suitable for ontological descriptions of abstract service flows. But when we
> treat them as executable (BPEL's double facet) and when we also want to
> convert XPDL to DAML-S (work in progress), instance representations of
> processes become reasonable.
> 
> The above conflict is also reflected in the results, i.e., when we use
> Protege and import 'process.daml' or 'loanApproval.daml' created by our
> tool, there is no traceable meta ontology  and instances (individuals) for
> all these classes(processes). Maybe a solution is there, and we hope our
> next version be fully shifted to OWL, which is gaining wider interest and
> support, provided it becomes reasonably stable.
> 
> I guess somebody else is trying WSDL2OWL-S or further.
> 
> Thanks for your up-to-date information.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Jun
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
> Sheila McIlraith
> Sent: Thursday, 30 October 2003 3:03 PM
> To: www-ws@w3.org
> Subject: Re: BPEL2DAMLS developed
> 
> Hi Jun,
> 
> Your tool sounds very interesting.  I'd like to know a little more about
> what sorts of DAML-S based ontologies you generate from the BPEL spec.
> E.g., are you generating a DAML-S profile or a DAML-S process model, or
> both?  The most appropriate ontology to generate would be a process model.
> 
> Note that there is a new release of DAML-S in which processes in the process
> model are treated as instances rather than classes.  Also note that DAML-S
> was a DAML+OIL ontology.  The DAML Services Coalition has transitioned to
> using OWL rather than DAML+OIL.  As such DAML-S is now OWL-S, an OWL
> ontology for Web services.
> 
> Regards,
> Sheila McIlraith
> 
> > Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:16:10 +1100
> > From: Jun Shen <jshen@it.swin.edu.au>
> > To: www-ws@w3.org
> > Subject: BPEL2DAMLS developed
> > Resent-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 18:17:07 -0500 (EST)
> > Resent-From: www-ws@w3.org
> >
> > Dear all
> > This tool generates ontologies based on DAML-S from specific BPEL4WS
> > workflow specifications. It extended CMU's WSDL2DAMLS by validating
> > BPEL and WSDL files and the output can be imported into Protege-2000
> > (as well as Protégé b2.0). The current version serves the newest
> > versions of related languages.
> >
> > Open source is currently ready for inquiry (email: jshen@computer.org)
> > and will be released for testing on
> > http://www.it.swin.edu.au/centres/cicec/
> > soon.
> >
> > You're more than welcome to have a try and provide feedback and bug
> > fixes.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Jun SHEN (MACS, MIEEE, MACM)
> > Centre for Internet Computing and E-Commerce
> > School of Information Technology
> > Swinburne Univ of Tech
> > Melbourne, Australia
> >
> >
> >
> ============================================================================
> ==
> 
> Sheila McIlraith, PhD                 Phone: 650-723-7932
> Senior Research Scientist             Fax:  650-725-5850
> Knowledge Systems Lab
> Department of Computer Science
> Gates Sciences Building, 2A-248       http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/people/sam
> Stanford University                   E-mail:
> sam-at-ksl-dot-stanford-dot-edu
> Stanford, CA 94305-9020

Received on Thursday, 30 October 2003 07:50:43 UTC