W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sws-ig@w3.org > November 2005

Re: [fwd] Draft charters for work on Semantics for WS

From: David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 08:40:30 -0800
Message-ID: <437CB27E.6040402@ai.sri.com>
To: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>
CC: "Battle, Steven Andrew" <steve.battle@hp.com>, public-sws-ig@w3.org

Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 10:28:11AM -0000, Battle, Steven Andrew wrote:
> 
>>The WSDL-S team openly acknowledge the strong relationship between
>>WSDL-S and OWL-S, so this should be clarified in the SAW working group
>>charter, which currently recognises only once source of input. One can
>>see the core elements of WSDL-S in the OWL-S submission. This identifies
>>OWL-S extensions for WSDL message (owl-s-parameter), binding and
>>operation (owl-s-process) definitions.
>>
>>The relevant sections of the OWL-S submission can be found in section
>>6.2
>>http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-OWL-S-20041122#SECTION00062000000
>>000000000
>>
>>This proposal is exactly along the lines of the WSDL working group
>>charter. I feel strongly that in the interests of clarity the sentence
>>below in the charter should be revised:
>>
>>"A Member Submission, WSDL-S, related to this work, has been
>>acknowledged by W3C and should be used as one input to the Working
>>Group."
>>
>>To something like:
>>
>>"Member Submissions related to this work, WSDL-S and OWL-S (see
>>'Grounding OWL-S Services with WSDL and SOAP'), have been acknowledged
>>by W3C and should be used as input to the Working Group."
> 
> 
> The question of where WSDL-S and OWL-S WSDL bindings are mentioned in
> the Semantic Annotations for WSDL charter is based on the differences
> between the two:
> 
> The OWL-S Submission adds the following WSDL markup:
>   + message/input@owl-s-parameter identifies OWL-S input or output
>     owl-s:Parameter.
>   + a new value for binding/encodingStyle identifies an encoding style
>     for serializing owl-s:Parameters.
>   + operation@owl-s-process identifies an OWL-S atomic process.
> and properties attaching a WSDL doc to a WsdlAtomicProcessGrounding and
> describing that WSDL:
>   wsdlVersion
>   wsdlDocument
>   wsdlOperation
>   wsdlService
>   wsdlPort
>   wsdlInput &
>   wsdlOutput -- WsdlInputMessageMaps describing XSLT
>                 transformations of I/O messages.
>   wsdlInputMessage &
>   wsdlOutputMessage
> 
> The WSDL-S Submission adds the following WSDL markup:
>   + modelReference, I guess can be affixed to any part of the component
>     model (pure speculation on my part).
>   + xsd:element/schemaMappings transform (XSLT, XQuery...) to "an
>     external domain model/ontology", which appears to be more XML.
>   + operation/precondition &
>     operation/effect in a format opaque to WSDL-S.
>   + interface/category links the interface to some taxonomy opaque to
>     (not specified by) WSDL-S.
> 
> I *think* that the momentum is behind adding modelReferences to WSDL
> components. The charter is a test of that hypothesis.
>

Hi Eric -

I think it is prejudging the work of the WG to make such a detailed
projection about the momentum towards a specific annotation such as
modelReference.  I think it is reasonable to make a more general
statement that the momentum is towards creating a new set of WSDL
annotations; of course, that's at the heart of the charter.  But
pre-ratifying specific annotations in a charter seems to me to be too
much of a prejudgment.

Overall, I agree with Steve that OWL-S should be mentioned as an input
(possibly with some qualification as to some particular parts of
OWL-S, as Steve has indicated).  Besides not prejudging, there are two
general reasons for this recommendation: (1) as I mentioned in another
recent message on public-sws-ig, OWL-S pioneered the idea of WSDL
extension elements to reference semantic descriptions.  This fact
should be given due attribution, especially considering that these
elements are discussed in our W3C submission (which itself predated
the other SWS submissions). (2) Mentioning OWL-S is a way of creating
a more inclusive and more collaborative effort.  There are a lot of
people who have worked with OWL-S, and a number who have worked with
OWL-S and WSDL together in various ways, and their experience may be
valuable to the WG.  (For example, we might explain why these
particular WSDL annotation elements were chosen, and how they may be
used, and generalized beyond OWL-S.) Why position things in a way that
might appear exclusive?

Regards,
David
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2005 16:41:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 16 March 2008 00:11:02 GMT