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

[Michael Maximilien <maxim@xxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

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?

Thanks,

E. M. Maximilien, Ph.D.
IBM Almaden Research Center
San Jose, CA USA
maxim@xxxxxxxxxx
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] "

To	"[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	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:
  http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2005_10_20

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:

http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2005_10_20/Prep

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] 
http://www.wsmo.org/TR/d16/d16.1/v0.2/#sec:wsml-capability-interface
 > [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] 
http://www.daml.org/services/swsf/1.1/swso/appendices/swso-rules.html

 > 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:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2005_07_28#nidEDP)
 >>
 >> ...
 >>
 >> 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