RE: remembering business data and taxonomy in description

+1!
 I would be interested in helping define a WS ontology in OWL.
  --Katia
--------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
Behalf Of David Booth
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 3:56 PM
To: Heather Kreger; [email protected]
Subject: Re: remembering business data and taxonomy in description



Heather,

What you have described is formally called an "ontology":
http://www.w3.org/2002/Talks/0813-semweb-dbooth/slide37-0.html

Clearly, if we do define a WS ontology for this purpose, then either RDF or
W3C's emerging Web Ontology Language (known as "OWL") should be used.  This
will: (a) ensure maximum flexibility and re-use potential; and (b) ensure
that the ontologies will always be cleanly extensible, without breaking
existing software and without having to wait for a standards group to
sanctify new "facts" or "rules" that people want to use.

At 07:07 PM 10/11/2002 -0400, Heather Kreger wrote:
>After the stack was accepted as a starting point at the face to face,
>someone brought up the need for business description and taxonomy to
>be described and associated with a service in a way that does not prescribe
>that UDDI be used.
>
>We had initially thought that this may mean a new description layer for the
>stack. But
>this didn't feel right.
>
>However, I  have talked with some others about this
>and would like to propose that this type of information is actually
>'information about the
>service'.  We had put other 'information about the service' in the policy
>layer and I would
>like to propose that this is where business and taxonomies should go as
>well.
>I believe that policies will contain 'facts' and 'rules'. Business data and
>taxonomies
>are facts.
>Once we have a policy language (ws-policy), there will need to be groups
>who define
>standards 'sets' of policies to standardize keywords and concepts for
>things like 'timeout', etc.
>I think that some group will need to define a standard owning business
>policy and
>taxonomy policy.   I think that the UDDIEntry defined by the UDDI
>specification
>  provides an excellent set of starter data for such a group.
>
>Opinions?



--
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273