Our scheduled Technical Discussion for Thu 2005.06.30, moderated
by Bill McCarthy, is on the subject of "Service Sciences". That
would be an ideal platform to "discuss" this - WSMO & SWSF - if
someone attending the session can talk about it intelligently.
Timing-wise, it may be too soon, though. (01)
Do we have anyone who can do that, and is planning to come to the
6/30 session? Any suggestion? (02)
=ppy (03)
P.S. ... just helping keep track of the acronyms: (04)
WSMO = Web Service Modeling Ontology -
http://www.w3.org/Submission/2005/SUBM-WSMO-20050603/
http://www.w3.org/2005/04/FSWS/Submissions/1/wsmo_v10.pdf (05)
SWSF = Semantic Web Services Framework -
http://www.daml.org/services/swsf/1.0/overview/
-- (06)
Nicolas F Rouquette wrote Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:57:35 -0700:
> It might be good to have a planning discussion about this.
>
> There could be 3 options:
>
> 1) presentation of WSMO
>
> 2) presentation of SWSF
>
> 3) the practical and strategic aspects of using WSMO and/or SWSF, for
> what, when, etc...
>
> Personally, 1) + 2) would be a weak approximation of the concerns that
> arise w.r.t. 3), the "real" issue.
> As I menitioned earlier, if you read some of the fine print in the WSMO
> and SWSF docs, there is
> important wisdom and caution that the people behind the spec believe is
> important enough to
> mention explicitly in these specs. However, it is difficult for
> non-experts to have enough depth
> about these related specs to make heads & tails of these bits and pieces
> of wisdom to go through
> a checklist of questions/answers to decide which of these approaches is
> better suited to a given problem.
>
> I'm not saying we can expect magic answers but we could start to ask the
> folks in WSMO and SWSF
> to help us organize a discussion where we could start a simple
> checklist of, say, the top ten questions
> they would advise/recommend practitioners to think about in choosing one
> vs. the other and some kind
> of illustration/example to get an intuitive feel to relate these
> questions to someone's own concerns/project/task/work...
>
> -- Nicolas. (07)
> Duane Nickull wrote:
>
>> Thank you Peter, Nicolas.
>>
>> M. Yim, would you consider placing an subject on our next agenda to
>> discuss a possible invitation to the gentlemen below to present to our
>> Group?
>>
>> Duane (08)
>> Peter F Brown wrote:
>>
>>> Duane:
>>> WSMO was presented in detail last week at the W3 semantic web services
>>> workshop in Innsbruck, Austria - WSMO's "home base", as it is largely
>>> promoted by the Innsbruck-based Digital Enterprise Research Institute
>>> (DERI), with considerable support from the European Commission.
>>>
>>> There is some concern about the pressure being mounted by DERI to
>>> have WSMO
>>> "adopted as a standard" (although not clear by whom: W3C?). The European
>>> Commission will be looking at this over the coming months.
>>>
>>> There is a good overview of WSMO at:
>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/04/FSWS/Submissions/1/wsmo_v10.pdf used at the
>>> workshop. It might be worth contacting John Domingue from the UK Open
>>> University, who made the presentation, and with whom I had a couple
>>> of bried
>>> talks during the activity.
>>>
>>> -Peter (09)
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Duane
>>> Nickull
>>> Sent: 11 June 2005 01:18
>>> To: [ontolog-forum]
>>> Subject: [ontolog-forum] Modeling Ontology
>>>
>>> Anyone have any comments or thoughts on this:
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/Submission/2005/SUBM-WSMO-20050603/
>>>
>>> Might be an idea to extend an invite for a presentation.
>>>
>>> Duane Nickull
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (010)
|