Remarks on the white paper "DAML-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services"

From: - Fabien Gandon - (
Date: 05/30/03

  • Next message: Terry R. Payne: "CALL FOR PAPERS: Semantic Web Services - 2004 AAAI Spring Symposium Series"
    Remarks on the white paper "DAML-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services"
                                     -- Fabien L. Gandon, Norman M. Sadeh
                                        Mobile Commerce Laboratory
                                        Carnegie Mellon University
    The following are a few informal comments on the new version of the 
    white paper "DAML-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services".
    1, As the article tries to systematically make links with other domains 
    and terminologies, one could insert a sentence stating that the 
    matchmaking capabilities and the knowledge bases containing the 
    profiles/service advertisement are sometime respectively called 'yellow 
    pages services' and 'yellow pages'.
    2, There is not enough emphasis on the necessity and use of an ontology 
    of the types of services (e.g. booking, renting, ordering, etc.) and the 
    domain of the services (e.g., cinema tickets, car, pizza) with its 
    specific concepts and properties (e.g. half price for students, 2 years 
    warranty, deliver at home) that specialize the upper class Service and 
    allow the matchmaking.
    3, Why is it the case that the Service instance is not simply annotated 
    with domain-dependent ontologies? Why a taxonomy slot and not simply a 
    use of namespaces? Why a categoryName slot instead of using a subtype of 
    service in an ontology and multiple instantiation? This really seems 
    counter-intuitive since all these mechanisms already exist in RDF/S. 
    While we understand the rationale of section 4, we don’t see the point 
    of sub-sections 4.2.6, 4.2.8, 4.2.9 ; these are typically 
    domain-dependent and should be addressed using domain ontologies 
    (identified by their namespaces) and multiple instantiation. Possible 
    links between these ontologies and/or between these ontologies and the 
    Service ontology would be done using subsumption, class equivalence, 
    etc. In our opinion these domain-dependent aspects should be handled 
    independently, thus only part of the profile should be specified and the 
    rest should be left to extensibility and semantic search capabilities.
    4, There is no reference to the RDF/S version of WSDL not even as 
    "related work" while it seems extremely relevant be it only for the 
    grounding. Advances on WSDL 2.0 should be acknowledged too.
    5, Section 4.2.4: Failure during the activation of a Web service could 
    have effects too e.g. report misuse of credit card and ban access if 
    wrong PIN. It seems that the effects should really be linked to some 
    stages of the process. Are we missing something here?
    6, The white paper should also make some links with existing ontologies 
    (time, space, persons, services, etc.) and acknowledge that some content 
    / ontologies already exist.
    7, In section 5.1, first bullet, when declaring the property 'input', 
    there is no use to overwrite the range since it is the same as the one 
    inherited from 'parameter'.
    8, Concerning the SimpleProcess, it seems to us that a better labeling 
    would be "AbstractProcess" since this really is what its definition 
    means: we understand it as an abstract  building block of the process 
    model (i.e. it cannot be invoked or grounded) and it has nothing to do 
    with being simple vs. complex or composite.
    9, Section 7.1: what if a resource can be used exactly X times (e.g. a 
    10-trip bus pass, right to access a location tracking device 2 times per 
    day), should it be modeled as the capacity of a non 'replenishable' 
    resource ? Also these issues are closely related to security and access 
    rights this would eventually need further details.
    Some typos / formatting details:
    Section 3: "The class service provides aN organizational point of 
    reference (...)"
    Section 6.1 : "XSD" acronym should be introduced when talking about XML 
    Schema data type, and may be it would be good to insert a line insisting 
    on what semantic web frameworks buy us compared to XSD
    Section 7.2 : the acronym "DAML-L" is used without being defined.
    Best regards,
    Fabien and Norman.
    |__ _ |_
    |  (_||_) Carnegie Mellon University - School of Computer Science

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 05/30/03 EST