[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Web service and Semantic Web
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: URAMOTO Naohiko <firstname.lastname@example.org>, XML DEV <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 09:45:21 -0600
Yes such negotiation is needed. How complex that is
should be a function of the mission of the
service, ontological or otherwise.
Global trust systems such as described for the
semantic web envisioned may be expensive to create
and maintain given the political and cultural
difficulties already encountered by global trading
partners. There are complex interactions among the
companies, the governments and the cultures of the
globe. I foresee simpler systems based on local
network definitions initially until we have established
the reliability of the local systems. It is difficult
to believe that companies that have difficulty establishing
trust within and among their own divisions can open
the kimono, so to speak, globally easily. Still,
we seem to be setting this as a task for ourselves,
so putting my trepidation aside, my intuition is:
1. Web global trust requires operational solutions.
2. Operational solutions require standard public
means for establishing credibility. Ad hoc procedures
are insufficient for some services.
3. Ontological services have common features that
can be used to establish operational credibility. The
article I cited in an earlier post on this subject
described some of these features which experienced
investigators critiqued as potential definitional
deficiencies (e.g., hidden cycles). Creating a global
ontological service will require some form of vetting.
For this, a testing authority may be required.
4. The use of or mission of the service determines
the level of testing required to ensure quality. We
have to look at complexity problems of the service
in terms of types of services and duration of service.
Consider the use of the service descriptions and
schema at the end of the namespace URL/URN. One might
say a simple human readable description such as those
that Tim Bray et al are describing are useable at
the same level of business where one enters a restaurant
and asks for a menu. For a complex transaction, more
stringent quality requirements will be needed. In
either case, the observable behaviors are described
Not being familiar with the work of ebXML, I cannot
comment. I think the "simple bridges to allies"
concept scales and therefore, I look for tools built
over simple descriptions of services that can then
engage scripted service transactions. In other words,
we have to look at levels of engagement as a protocol.
The work at Microsoft on .Net, XLang, etc. fits the kind of framework
for such services as were described in our work at
General Electric Aircraft Engines in the early late
eighties and early 90s.
Our conclusions then were that markup based systems
with public type definitions (XML Schemas were not
available then, we were using SGML), and product/process
models that nested and enabled the companies to use
public interfaces were required. This seems to me
to be exactly where MS.net is leading. We need more
experience with the tools but a critical look at how
the tools enable one to establish the trusted service
will be the next logical step.
As I said earlier, go slow and deliberately into
this. We need practice. A head long rush such as
the HTML experience is ill-advised.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: URAMOTO Naohiko [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Len, thank you very much for your comment.
> That is the credibility issue. It cannot be decided
> apriori. You do as you would in a face to face negotiation
> where no trusted provider (eg, a keiretsu member) already
> exists (in western terms, a sole source providcer) or for
> which no prior record of authority exists that attests to t
> the credibility of the provider (eg, a business reference):
I see. My question is does Semantic Web require a mechanism
of trust establishment as well as digital signature framework.
I think digital signature (and certificates from CAs) is not
enough for trust establishment for assertions, and we need
extra mechanism to qualify assertions scattered on the
Web. If not, we might make trust network in local communities,
but it is very hard to establish Web-scale trust network (which
is a goal of SW), since it is (still) expensive to introduce a trust
establishment system with PKI that can cover whole the Web.
> 1. Discover an entity that claims to provide a service
> in a claim language you recognize. This may be in response
> to a query that serves the same function as a Request for
The steps describe how to establish business trading
between business entities that don't know each other.
For example, tpaML (Trading Partner Agreement ML), which
is discussing in the ebXML community, aims to describe terms
and condition for negotiation (I heard tpaML has been renamed,
but I forgot the new name). Do you think such negotiation is
needed for SW?