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

From: Sheila McIlraith (
Date: 06/11/01


I agree with your comments.  One thing I'd also like to pursue is or
re-investigate is the tighter coupling of inputs/preconditions, etc.
that we discussed prior to the release.  Perhaps we can put this on
the agenda for the next telecon.


Terry 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.
> 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?  Has
> anyone considered how this is going to be showcased?
> > Terry
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]

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