[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Re: Preparation for the 2005.10.20 Technical Discus

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Michael Maximilien <maxim@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 02:53:49 -0700
Message-id: <OFD34A84AF.82122847-ON88257078.00358EA7-88257078.00365DF9@xxxxxxxxxx>


As I suggested in my previous post, we should also include the WSDL-S effort.   This has potential for significant traction in the SWS space since it takes a very pragmatic and lightweight approach to adding semantics to Web services.  There are various communities already using the specification and it was submitted to the W3C.  Here are some references:

[1] Web Services Semantics - WSDL-S: http://www.w3.org/2005/04/FSWS/Submissions/17/WSDL-S.htm
[2] http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/wssem

There are also tools available for the Eclipse platform and others:

[1] METEOR-S tool from the University of Georgia: http://lsdis.cs.uga.edu/projects/meteor-s/
[2] Semantic tools for Web services from IBM's alphaWorks: http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/wssem

Others are on the works.  I have lined up the two point researchers from both University of Georgia and IBM Research (and teams) to participate in the call.


Secondly, who are we inviting for the OWL-S side of the world?


E. M. Maximilien, Ph.D.
IBM Almaden Research Center
San Jose, CA USA
Homepage: http://maximilien.org

"Peter P. Yim" <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Sent by: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

09/09/2005 01:14 PM
Please respond to
"[ontolog-forum] "

"[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Re: [ontolog-forum]  Re: Preparation for the 2005.10.20 Technical Discussion on Semantic Web Service Ontology Standard

Thanks you all, Nicolas, John, MichaelM & MichaelG. How we've got
our program team together ... I bow out now, so that you can
continue the prep work.

Please continue the dialog on this thread, and capture
significant progress under the ?prep page at:

At an appropriate time, please move salient portions of that work
(confirmed panelists, abstract, framing-of-the-issues, ... a
consensus set of questions we like to address within that 2-hour
session, ... etc.) over to the session page proper, at:


Feel free to solicit other suggestions and comments from the rest
of the community too.

Cheers.  =ppy

Nicolas F Rouquette wrote Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:37:00 -0700:
> Hello,
> ..
> I have looked at John Domingue's presentation. It is certainly
> helpful to understand what WSMO is conceptually.

> From a practical point of view however, there are big
> differences in the way OWL-S, SWSF and WSMO
> are described in various documents, presentations, etc... These
> differences mean that it is difficult for a practioner to
> understand how these 3 models relate to one another.

> Ideally, it would be great to have a metamodel mapping similar
> to the ODM that Elisa presented yesterday for OWL-S, SWSF and
> WSMO.In practice, we need to scale back this mapping down to
> the core concepts that are important across models of web
> services.So, I propose to focus on 2 groups of concepts:

> Group1: describing how a web service actually works in terms of
> a computational model for executing it

> In SWSF, that would be FLOWS (ontology for web services) and
> its rule-based execution model, ROWS
> In OWL-S, that would be the process model
> In WSMO, that would be the service interfaces specified as
> AbstractState Machines (ASM)

> Group2: describing what a web service does for the purpose
> advertisement, matching, etc...
> In SWSF, that would still be FLOWS & ROWS
> In OWL-S, that would be the profile model
> In WSMO, that would be the capabilities, goals,
> non-functional properties
> For WSMO, we could easily get the relevant materials
> from [1] and [2].
> [1] http://www.wsmo.org/TR/d17/v0.2/#s312
> [2] http://www.wsmo.org/TR/d17/v0.2/#s313

> For SWSF, I only know of [3] and [4]
> [3] http://www.daml.org/services/swsf/1.1/swsl/
> [4] http://www.daml.org/services/swsf/1.1/swso/

> In many respects, both SWSO and WSMO subsume OWL-S
> and as noted in SWSO and WSMO, these two approaches
> seem to be conflicting views but can be in fact interpreted as
> complimentary to one another.
> Using a common example from, e.g., [5], I would like to have
> a discussion where we use both WSMO and FLOWS/ROWS to
> emphasize how we could improve that example w.r.t.
> two criteria:
> [5] http://www.mindswap.org/2004/owl-s/services.shtml

> Criteria 1) Clarifying the semantics of service specification

> WSMO's capabilities[6,7] (incl. precon, postcond, ...) & FLOWS'
> activities & ordering constraints [8]

> [6] http://www.wsmo.org/TR/d2/v1.2/#capability
> [7]
> [8] http://www.daml.org/services/swsf/1.1/swso/#process-model

> Note that [6,7] don't really specify the semantics of
> capabilities,  preconditions, etc..
> whereas they are defined in FLOW's process model [8].

> Criteria 2) Clarifying the semantics of service execution

> b) WSMO's approach for process representation & execution w/
> abstract state machines [9]
> & SWSF's approach with FLOWS and ROWS as translated into
> SWSL-Rules [10]
> [9] http://www.wsmo.org/TR/d13/d13.7/v0.2/#L502
> [10]

> WSMO's edge over SWSF is, currently, in the extent of tool
> supportavailable.
> SWSF's edge over WSMO is in the semantic continuity that FLOWS
> & ROWSbring across service specifications, descriptions
> and executions compared to WSMO's multiple languages.

> So, to better understand the practical relevance of both
> approaches, it would be helpful to understand how these
> two approaches can complement each other.
> -- Nicolas.

> Peter P. Yim wrote Fri, 09 Sep 2005 07:54:14 -0700:
>> John,
>> ...
>> Besides your own talk, though, we were hoping that you would
>> be able to help invite/coordinate other panelists and
>> participants from the EU, particularly,
>> from the two other parallel efforts that you
>> alluded to during our 2005.06.23 conference call (ref:
>> ...
>> Regards.  =ppy
>> --

John Domingue wrote Thu, 8 Sep 2005 09:39:56 +0100:
> I also confirm my participation. I'll be talking primarily about the
> WSMO effort
> john

> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Gruninger"
> <gruninger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Peter P. Yim" <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Nicolas F Rouquette" <nicolas.rouquette@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "John
> Domingue" <j.b.domingue@xxxxxxxxxx>; "Michael Gruninger"
> <gruning@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Michael Maximilien" <maxim@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Duane Nickull"
> <dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>; "Peter F Brown" <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 7:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Preparation for the 2005.10.20 Technical Discussion on
> Semantic Web Service Ontology Standard
>> Peter P. Yim wrote:
>> Hello Peter,
>> this is to confirm my participation on the panel;
>> I will be presenting the latest news from the SWSI/FLOWS effort.
>> - michael

>>> NicolasRouquette, JohnDomingue, MichaelMaximilien & MichaelGruninger,
>>> In view of the reschedule (from 10/27 to 10/20) I have re-initialized
>>> the session wiki page (and its companion /prep page). See:
>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2005_10_20
>>> and (more importantly, for now)
>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2005_10_20/Prep
>>> To make sure this new date is, in fact, feasible, could you all
>>> *kindly acknowledge this message*, as well as indicate your
>>> availability. It would be nice if you could also indicate the people
>>> each of you are planning to invite to this session so that we could
>>> (besides the 3 European efforts that John promised to help bring
>>> together) have a representative spectrum of all the key efforts that
>>> are underway regarding the topic area.
>>> ...  Nicolas, John & MichaelM (possibly MichaelG too) please continue
>>> the dialog and the prep work.
>>> Thanks & regards.  =ppy
>>> --

>>> Peter P. Yim wrote Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:03:24 -0700:
>>>> Further to our discussion at last week's conference call (see:
>>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2005_08_04#nidEQ1),
>>>> I have initialized the session page, and the preparation page for
>>>> the subjection event. They are respectively at:
>>>> Discussion Session page:
>>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2005_10_27
>>>> Session Preparation page:
>>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2005_10_27/Prep
>>>> Nicolas, please take over from here to organize and prepare for the
>>>> event.
>>>> Ideas, suggestions and comments from the community is welcomed, as
>>>> always.
>>>> We take the opportunity to request confirmation from John Domingue
>>>> and Michael Gruninger (who has already been invited) of their
>>>> available.
>>>> [Nicolas: please note that other panelists have yet to be invited
>>>> and confirmed.]
>>>> On behalf of the community, let's thank Nicolas Rouquette for
>>>> agreeing to organize and moderate the session. I should also thank
>>>> Duane Nickull and Peter Brown (along with Nicolas) who initiated
>>>> this all from their postings back in June 2005.
>>>> Thanks & regards.  =ppy
>>>> --
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>