• Add a Comment
  • Edit
  • More Actions v
  • Quarantine this Entry

Comments (5)

1 localhost commented Permalink

How do semantic Web services relate to WSDM MUWS and using it with CIM as the resource model? Is the former basically a generalization of the latter, which is geared primarily towards managing resources using Web Services?Thanks,Christian

2 localhost commented Permalink

From my little experience with them, I am skeptical about semantical web services. From what I have seen, the add a lot of things on top of the real world (if we take SOA as "real"), just to achieve very little. I see it mainly as an initiative from a set of people from the academia that is quite far away from the real world.More details about this in http://jcamara.theblog.net/a?title=are_semantic_web_services_the_next_step&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 (if the link does not work, please use http://jcamara.theblog.net/)

3 localhost commented Permalink

Whether you believe in semantics or not, people developing real SOAs in the future will be spending most of the time trying to address complex integration problems, which involves understanding and reconciling both processes and data semantics.In its generality, this problem is very far from trivial: specific syntaxes and reasoning capabilities are a good (and necessary) starting point, but then you have to adopt an integration model, being aware of the consequences .. Read more in http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/444/vetere.htmlCheers,Guido

4 localhost commented Permalink

For now the WSDM Management Using Web Services is related to semantic Web services as is any other Web service. The WSDL for any Web service can be annotation to include semantic references. The manageability interface could be annotated with references to a standard ontology for management concepts to better describe the payloads of the operations and the functions those operations perform.Thanks,Joel

5 localhost commented Permalink

The kind of semantics that SOA requires is what many people recognize as "Little Semantics". Unlike what jcamara thinks in this posting and his blog, adding semantics to SOA does not mean creating massive ontologies. However, heavy reliance on logic on some of the frameworks (I have come across OWL-S and WSMO) could indeed make them more heavy weight. During our discussions with some researchers in this area (One of them works in the same lab as the WSDL-S guys), the key difference is whether we want to add services to semantics or semantics to services? Now if we choose to go do the former, the overload is very heavy and the gains (atleast for now) do not justify the process. But in case of an approach like WSDL-S, the simplicity (I assume WSDL is simple) of service descriptions are maintained. Adding a few tags does not alter your deployment specifications or the way clients interact with your service. Borrowing a phrase from "METEOR-S" project guys, this does "simplify SWS". Now the real deal is in addressing data mediation problems. It would be good if Joel or any of the WSDL-S guys can throw some light this, using some real world use cases. This would mean much to startups like ours.

Add a Comment Add a Comment