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

[Frank Gibbons]

Mark, Philip,

Thanks for clarifying things: both the question in my mind (could/should 
MOBY-S use OWL-S?), and the confusion caused by my incomplete grasp of 
things semantic.

-F

At 11:37 AM 9/14/2004, Mark Wilkinson wrote:
>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
>_______________________________________________
>moby-l mailing list
>moby-l at biomoby.org
>http://biomoby.org/mailman/listinfo/moby-l

PhD, Computational Biologist,
Harvard Medical School BCMP/SGM-322, 250 Longwood Ave, Boston MA 02115, USA.
Tel: 617-432-3555       Fax: 
617-432-3557       http://llama.med.harvard.edu/~fgibbons