W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sws-ig@w3.org > November 2004

Re: OWL-S version 1.1 now available

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:15:44 +0900
Message-Id: <4E21356E-3BA6-11D9-B962-000D93C1F7A6@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: public-sws-ig <public-sws-ig@w3.org>, David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>
To: Ian Dickinson <ian.dickinson@hp.com>

On Nov 20, 2004, at 7:42 PM, Ian Dickinson wrote:

> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>>> [David Martin]
>>> Very good point.  I don't know the answer to this either, but we'll 
>>> look in to it.
>> WSDL 2.0 supplies a mapping from the qnames to canonical URIs for 
>> components (using a set of xpointer schemes). We could do one for 
>> WSDL 1.1 as well, I suppose.
> I haven't looked at WSDL 2.0 yet, and after reading Rich Salz's rant 
> [1] I'm not inclined to for the time being!

Eh...filters are filters. I'm no fan but it doesn't seem to be nearly 
as bad as he made it out to be. In fact, some of the criticism is 
downright silly. E.g.:

"While these documents might be useful to someone developing a WSDL 
tool, they are practically useless for a web services developer who 
wants to use WSDL to define their interface."

The wg made an explicit decision to make the *specs* targeted at 
implementers. There is to be, in current W3C tradition, a *primer* 
which is targeted more at users.

More non, again. I mean, the only one that really seems to matter is 
the last (i.e,. is a real technical objection). The rest seem mroe 
taste based (he doesn't like the generality). Eh.

>  But if they have specified a qname<->uri mapping, and it's consistent 
> with wsdl 1.1,

I don't know about that. But it would be possible to make one 
consistent. Indeed, I believe you could compile WSDL 1.1 to the WSDL 
2.0 component model, which would give you URIs. I'll investigate.

> then it seems a good idea to refer to it from owl-s. Because without 
> doubt wsdl 1.1 will be around for a long time yet.  We still have DAML 
> users wanting support on the Jena forum,

Tell them to go away :)

Seriously. The *only* reason to stay with DAML+OIL is for qualified 
number restrictions and it would be better for some sensible folks to 
simply define an owl relevant extension for them.

>  despite the length of time that OWL has been around (and the fact 
> that OWL is a better specification than DAML). WSDL 1.1 is far more 
> prevalent than DAML ever was.

Verra true.

Bijan Parsia.
Received on Sunday, 21 November 2004 10:15:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:54:14 UTC