[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Fw: Commercial/Real-world Semantic Web Services?
So we can certainly not agree on everything and we get nowhere if we agree on nothing. The challenge then is (1) to identify what is likely a productive domain in which to work towards agreement and (2) to understand how to leverage this base to work together where differences persist. Aim at too low a level and you will have endless bickering; aim too high and you are left with too many holes. So on the semantics front, what if we agreed on the way to represent our semantics, including a way to identify common semantics we are using, and then agree on a way to translate across semantic differences? If not a complete solution for all cases, is there at least a sweet spot somewhere in there? Ken (who works in the Information Semantics group) On Oct 10, 2006, at 10:43 AM, Jeffrey A. Estefan wrote: > Team, > > Passing this along as an FYI since we're about to embark on the > Service Description model. > > - J > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Xuan Shi" <Xuan.Shi@mail.wvu.edu> > To: "Minsu Jang" <minsu.jang@gmail.com>; "Ed Addison" <ed@teradisc.org> > Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>; <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>; > <public-sws-ig@w3.org> > Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 8:53 PM > Subject: Re: Commercial/Real-world Semantic Web Services? > > >> >> I agree, semantic Web services (SWS) and this IG have nothing to >> boast, >> as I indicated in >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sws-ig/2006Sep/0018.html >> >> By examining W3C documentation "Web Services Architecture" again @ >> http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-arch/ we can see why SWS failed and had >> little accomplishment and progress in the past years. >> >> How to realize and implement (semantic) Web services? W3C said >> clearly: >> "the requester and provider entities must agree on the semantics and >> the >> service description that will govern the interaction between the >> requester and provider agents, but it would be more accurate to say >> that >> they simply need to have a congruent or non-conflicting view of the >> semantics and service description of the interaction." >> >> (Semantic) Web Services Architecture has to be based on "agreement" - >> if anyone in this SWS-IG would like to read this document again, just >> count the number of the repeated word "agree" used in this W3C >> document. >> >> However, the leading roles of this IG believed that NOBODY wants to >> agree with each other, as every developer or service provider has the >> absolute right to do what s/he wants to do. For this reason, they have >> to use varied kind of logical modeling to guess which one might be >> similar to the others, by referencing each individual annotated >> semantic >> definition to a super-ontology. >> >> Unfortunately, ontology, again by definition, is a shared, common >> conceptualization of a domain knowledge (or again a kind of >> agreement/standard). Then we see, those who CANNOT reach an >> "agreement" >> have to "share" a super-ontology. This means, after turning around and >> around through modeling, we return to the starting point - we have to >> "agree" something first. But the problem is, referencing to a >> super-ontology promotes the dissemination of individual "semantic" >> definition on varied service and interface, and this means such people >> just do NOT use that "shared" ontology of a domain of the service. >> >> Why people do NOT use that "shared" super-ontology of a domain of the >> service, in case there is such a super-ontology? Because they thought >> standard/agreement-based SWS "takes all the fun out of it", although >> they knew "That's certainly true" - "given enough clear information >> about web services", we can write any desired program for interacting >> with web services, because we reach an agreement first, then those >> artificially designed "agents" know what and how to do with little >> fun. >> >> Regards, >> >> Xuan >> >> >>>>> "Ed Addison" <ed@teradisc.org> 10/9/2006 1:13 PM >>> >> I would suggest that those commercial applications that use semantic >> web, or >> semantic web-like technology would not necessarily advertise that >> that's >> what they are doing. The semantic web is a tool, not a product or >> market. >> SInce the semantic web is in its infancy, commercial applications that >> do >> use semantic web technology most likely use a significantly scoped >> down >> subset of it. The semantic web is more likely to slowly infiltrate >> various >> information products and web services rather than suddenly get >> commercial >> adoption. Might be tough to find or even classify the cases for your >> study. Good luck. >> >> >> >> On 10/8/06, Minsu Jang <minsu.jang@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Deal all, >>> >>> I'm doing a case study on commercial or real-world semantic web >> services. >>> I've done a significant amount of searches on google, but could not >> find >>> any evidence of semantic web services deployed for real-world >> services. >>> Could anybody shed some light on me of where the semantic web >> services >>> in the real world is going? Any URLs or references would be greatly >>> appreciated. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> zebehn >>> >>> PS: i'm sorry for cross-posting. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Ed Addison >> 910-616-7327 >> >> .......Think Big !! > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ Ken Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]