Lists Home |
Date Index |
Jumping in on this thread at a random point to pass along a milestone
(IMHO) in the Semantic Web world - with apologies to those for whom this
may be a duplication:
Just announced: The Semantic Web Services Initiative (SWSI) has released
architecture requirements for Semantic Web Services. Highlights
included below - including service lifecycle and ontology management.
Booz | Allen | Hamilton
Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
(1) Semantic Web Services are viewed as a way to extend the capabilities
of web services in the direction of dynamic interoperability, thereby
making it possible for clients to successfully utilize web services
without prior arrangements between people that are realized in rigid
software protocols, and immutable ontologies or meta-data.
(2) The functions addressed by the Semantic Web Services Architecture
* Dynamic Service Discovery: The capability for a software agent to
identify candidate services for particular objectives; includes
candidate service matchmaking and brokering functions.
* Service Selection and Composition: The capability to dynamically
select and compose services to achieve some objective; includes failure
recovery and compensation mechanisms, as well as choreography
interpretation and execution. Also includes ontology translation
* Negotiation and Contracting: Ability for two agents to mutually
formulate a shared agreement in terms of performance to be provided;
includes dispute resolution and compliance.
* Semantic Web Community Support Services: Capabilities associated with
sharing semantic descriptions, ontologies, ontology mappings, and
service catalogs within and across communities, and managing these items
* Semantic Web Service Lifecycle and Resource Management Services:
Capability to management the lifecycle of Semantic Web Services.
* Other: Includes QoS requirements (time, cost, reliabilty, operational
metrics, etc.), and the capability to discover a service based on these
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> Yeah, that's been the observable behavior all the way
> back to MULTICS and possibly before. A lot effort is
> tossed at a large problem but solving the smaller subproblems
> leads to useful bits. Some say, dare to do less, and maybe
> that works, but sometimes daring to more gets a
> lot done, just not everything one set out to do. D'oh.
> I'm no expert in this but...
> The problem here is that the Semantic Web tech,
> as John Sowa and others point out on their lists, is
> recreating technology that has been successfully created
> before and worked well. The difference is scale and
> architecture. It seems to me that if it fails at
> the scale and architecture asked for, even if it
> leaves some useful bits behind, they are mostly the
> same useful bits we already have except for using
> URI naming.
> From: Michael Champion [mailto:email@example.com]
> On Jun 3, 2004, at 9:32 AM, DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO) wrote:
> > the semantic web is something that
> > will inspire great ideas that get implemented in a different, more
> > practical
> > project?
> For what it's worth, that's exactly the point I was trying to make in
> my response to Len.
> 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://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
Booz | Allen | Hamilton