1. Conceptual Comparison WSMO/OWL-S 1st F2F meeting SDK cluster working group on Semantic Web Services Wiesbaden, Germany, 15-03-2004 Rubén Lara, (Dumitru Roman, Axel Polleres) Digital Enterprise Research Institute Innsbruck ruben.lara@uibk.ac.at

2. 15-03-2004Rubén Lara ruben.lara@uibk.ac.at 2 Agenda Motivation Summary of the comparison

3. 15-03-2004Rubén Lara ruben.lara@uibk.ac.at 3 Motivation Semantic Web Services can have a great impact in areas of the relevance of e-Commerce and Enterprise Application Integration. Their great potential benefits have led to the establishment of an important research area to realize Semantic Web Services. Two major initiatives –WSMO –OWL-S –Goal: world-wide standard for the semantic description of Web Services, grounding its application in a real setting –Identify their overlaps and differences in order to evaluate their real potential to realize the vision of Semantic Web Services and to be adopted in real applications

4. 15-03-2004Rubén Lara ruben.lara@uibk.ac.at 4 What we have compared Versions compared –OWL-S 1.0 –WSMO 0.1 (WSMO-Standard) Full comparison: http://www.wsmo.org/2004/d4/d4.1/v01/ http://www.wsmo.org/2004/d4/d4.1/v01/ Future versions: –Update to succesive versions of both OWL-S and WSMO –Include modeling of use cases

5. 15-03-2004Rubén Lara ruben.lara@uibk.ac.at 5 Core results Comparison aspectWSMO-Standard v0.1OWL-S 1.0 Purpose Clear goal, specific application domains Too wide, not clear Principles Explicit conceptual work and well- established principles Not explicit, only specifies set of tasks to be solved Coupling Loose coupling, independent definition of description elements Tight coupling in several aspects Extensibility Extensible in every directionLimited extensibility, only through OWL subclassing Implementation & business layer Will be clearly separated in WSMO- Full Messed up e.g. use of the Resource concept Registry Not dictated Requester needs & service capabilities Two different points of view, modeled independently and linked via wgMediators Not separated, unified view in the service profile

6. 15-03-2004Rubén Lara ruben.lara@uibk.ac.at 6 Core results (II) Comparison aspectWSMO-Standard v0.1OWL-S 1.0 Functionality description Explicit and complete descriptionIncomplete Non-functional properties Pre-defined properties. Flexible extension but not explicit mechanism Few pre-defined properties. Explicit extension mechanism but improvable flexibility Orchestration Supports static and dynamic composition, but under-defined Limited dynamic composition Grounding Multiple groundings, not pre-defined grounding Multiple groundings, WSDL pre- defined grounding Mediation Scalable mediation between loosely coupled elements No mediation Layering 3-layers (WSMO-Lite, WSMO-Standard, WSMO-Full) covering different complexity levels of the domain No layering (layering inherited from OWL, does not reflect complexity of the application domain) Languages F-Logic for logical expressions. Detailed justification for the choice. Ontology language not imposed Language for conditions not defined. OWL is used with no justification