Re: Proposed modifications to Service.daml & Telecon???

From: David Martin (
Date: 06/08/01

Terry -

Thanks, many good points, and sorry about the slow response.

"Terry R. Payne" wrote:
> People,
>         one of my concerns about the profile is that one needs to be able
> to refer back to the process model and the service itself from the profile.
> In current profile files, I include not only instantiations of the profile
> itself, but include instantiations for the service and a link to the
> process model [1][2].  However, I feel we need a more explicit links
> between components, other than the "supports", "implements" etc.
> I've augmented the Service ontology [3] to include inverse relations, such
> as "isPresentedBy", that would allow a profile to provide a reference to
> a service.  See
> I'm not sure how people feel about incremental updates to the DAML-S
> release, but until it is released to the broader community, I believe
> we should make sure that it is up to date.  So I advocate that if there
> are no objections, that we consider using this new Service ontology.

I totally agree, and this will be placed on

> Also, I've not seen much in the way of feedback from the broader ws
> community, or even from within our community on this release, and yet
> Katia and I keep identifying errors and ambiguities within the work.
> What is the current status of the weekly telecons, and do we plan to
> progress further over the next month prior to the PI meeting?  

Yes, I hope that things will get back into high gear starting with the
telecon next week (I'm still planning on tuesday, if that's OK for
everyone).  I regret that Katia isn't available for the next one, but
will you be there?

> Has
> anyone considered how this is going to be showcased?

Yikes, only superficially so far.  But we'll get there!

- Dave

>         Terry
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 03/26/02 EST