[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Walter,
You make great points regarding semantics. I would recommend that you
track the progress of DAML-S [1], an emerging DAML+OIL ontology for
Semantic Web Services.
Quotes from [1]:
DAML-S is an emerging DAML+OIL ontology for Semantic Web Services. It is
a collaborative effort between BBN Technologies, Carnegie Mellon
University, Nokia Research Center, SRI International, Stanford
University, and Yale University. The Semantic Web is rapidly becoming a
reality through the development of Semantic Web markup languages such as
DAML+OIL, and these markup languages enable the creation of arbitrary
domain ontologies (such as DAML-S) that support the unambiguous
description of Web content.
While WSDL provides a low-level description of Web services, DAML-S
complements WSDL by providing Web service descriptions at the
application layer - that is, describing what a service can do, not just
how it does it. A DAML-S/WSDL binding (known as a "grounding") has been
defined that involves a complementary use of the two languages.
Kind Regards,
Joe Chiusano
Booz | Allen | Hamilton
[1] http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~snarayan/ISWC2002.pdf
"W. E. Perry" wrote:
>
> Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>
> > Tangentially related to this discussion:
> >
> > SOAP 1.2 Message Normalization became a W3C Note [1] on 3/28/03. From
> > the abstract:
> >
> > "SOAP 1.2 intermediaries have some license when reserializing messages that
> > pass through them. This document defines a transformation algorithm that
> > renders all semantically equivalent SOAP messages identically. The
> > transformation may be used in conjunction with an XML canonicalization
> > algorithm prior to the generation of a message digest in producing XML digital
> > signatures that are sufficiently robust to survive passage through one or more
> > SOAP intermediaries."
>
> Arrrgh. From my original point to its polar opposite in six steps (quite a
> tangency!). Would anyone care to give a declarative definition of semantic
> equivalence in the general case? Can that be done except, as here, by
> prescribing canonical processes in order to constrain their potential outcomes?
> But isn't that the centrally-controlled converse of what we hope for from web
> [nocap] services? Isn't the point of WS to offer best-of-breed expert
> functionality in all of its exquisite idiosyncrasy so that its uncompromised
> power can be harnessed into customized workflows? But if the processes are
> canonical to such a degree that we can speak of their outcomes as semantically
> equivalent, what's the point of using a web-available process rather than
> building your own and avoiding all the problems of security and of semantic
> mismatches?
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Walter Perry
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
begin:vcard
n:Chiusano;Joseph
tel;work:(703) 902-6923
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.bah.com
org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team
adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012;
version:2.1
email;internet:chiusano_joseph@bah.com
title:Senior Consultant
fn:Joseph M. Chiusano
end:vcard
|
