Difference between revisions of "ServiceOntologies"
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
====YOUR NAME HERE==== | ====YOUR NAME HERE==== | ||
| + | ===IRI Data Library Function Ontology=== | ||
This is not a service ontology per se, but it is an ontology of functions, i.e. the key part of the services I would like to provide. So it is midway between a use case and a service ontology, I guess. | This is not a service ontology per se, but it is an ontology of functions, i.e. the key part of the services I would like to provide. So it is midway between a use case and a service ontology, I guess. | ||
Latest revision as of 08:05, May 16, 2008
Service Ontology Links
Examples
Examples from http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.0/examples.html
YOUR NAME HERE
IRI Data Library Function Ontology
This is not a service ontology per se, but it is an ontology of functions, i.e. the key part of the services I would like to provide. So it is midway between a use case and a service ontology, I guess.
The ontology is functions.owl, with instances at functions_ingrid.owl.
There is also an interface which displays the content of ontology as function documentation pages.
As for making these services, they would get wrapped: preceeded by a read-data-service command, and followed by a data-service-point command. They can also get strung together as a series of data filters, i.e. a scientific data flow. So I would also like to provide any legal concatenation of filters as a compound service. Another point of view, it is the scientific data flow that needs to be represented, with the actual breakdown into services a technical step hidden from the user.
Benno Blumenthal (Benno) 11:03, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
