From: David Martin (martin@AI.SRI.COM)
Date: 10/29/03
Fabien & Norman - Thanks (very belatedly) for these comments on the DAML-S 0.9 Technical Overview. Now that we are finalizing OWL-S 1.0, we are in a position to adopt and/or respond to your suggestions/criticisms/questions. Since this might be of educational benefit to the world-at-large, I would like to forward this message to www-ws@w3c.org, and we can respond to it there. Is that OK? Regards, David - Fabien Gandon - wrote: > 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. >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 10/29/03 EST