[MISC] Re: [MOBY-l] OWL-S, and RDF ontology for MOBY?

[Mark Wilkinson]

On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 10:06, Phillip Lord wrote:

> I think OWL-S is mostly aimed at automated composition which is not
> really what moby-s is aimed at. You're unlikely to be able to get
> semantic descriptions rich enough to describe services well enough to
> be able to do this anyway, in which case you are accepting a lot of
> complexity from OWL-S which will not necessarily buy you very much. 

We looked into this in some detail at my lab meeting last week.  The
tentative conclusion was the we could, in principle, describe a MOBY
service in OWL-S if we had to.  It may or may not be useful to do so,
and we need to overcome the current lack of a MOBYObject->XSD
translator.  

However, what we could NOT describe was the MOBY Invocation Message
structure, since the message structure allows multiple invocations in a
single message, each of which may be a different object type (so long as
they are ontologically related).

So the final conclusion was that, at least as it exists today, MOBY-S
cannot be described in OWL-S (at leats as far as we understand it).

This is not a commentary on the usefulness/not of MOBY-S nor OWL-S, it
is just an observation.

M
-- 
Mark Wilkinson (mwilkinson at mrl.ubc.ca)
University of British Columbia iCAPTURE Centre