Services breakout session (On Behalf of David Martin)

From: Brandon Amundson (
Date: 04/04/03

  • Next message: Austin Tate: "Re: Services breakout session (On Behalf of David Martin)"
    Hello DAML-ites -
    For our breakout session on Services (Wednesday 9:00 AM), the DAML-S
    coalition is planning to cover a range of timely topics in 3
    sub-sessions, as shown below.
    In addition to everyone with a general interest in Semantic Web
    services, we particularly solicit participation from folks interested
        tie-in with work on commercial Web services
        security issues
        description logic expressiveness issues
    and we definitely request participation from language committee folks.
    It would be very helpful to know of the interests of those who plan to
    attend.  If anyone cares to indicate interest in specific topics below,
    or suggest additional topics, please feel free to respond to me, to, or to as you see fit.
    Comments and suggestions welcome!
    -- Services breakout session: preliminary outline --
    Outreach & Use cases [Katia Sycara and Mark Burstein]
        What is the "business case" for Semantic Web services?
        What are the important applications in the real world?
        How will DAML-S fit into the larger context of Web services
        How will DAML-S fit into activities at W3C?
        Continue progress towards a library of SW Services use cases
    Security and SW Services [Grit Denker and Katia Sycara]
        What kind of security mechanisms are needed by 
          Semantic Web services?
        What security standards do we want to integrate?
        What requirements do these generate for DAML-S?
        What language or architectural requirements remain
           outside of DAML-S?
    Language expressiveness issues [David Martin and Drew McDermott]
        How best to express the conditions and effects associated
          with services?
        Can we target a specific OWL level or levels (Lite, DL, Full)
          for our ontology (or subontologies).  What changes are
          required to DAML-S, to stay within these targets?
        Are we using the "base language" (DAML+OIL, OWL) as well as
        Should we adopt means of representing processes that exploit DL
          reasoning more directly, as raised in research papers?
        What new features/modifications to OWL would help us?  E.g.,
          Transitive rules
          Path language
    David Martin

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/04/03 EST