Re: Draft charters for work on Semantics for WS and WSDL 2.0 RDF mapping from Eric Prud'hommeaux on 2005-11-18 (public-sws-ig@w3.org from November 2005)

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 09:21:25 -0500
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Cc: Massimo Paolucci <paolucci@docomolab-euro.com>, public-sws-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <20051118142125.GB14587@w3.org>
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 03:54:00PM +0100, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> 
> Hi Massimo,
> 
> as one of the editors of the WSDL 2.0 RDF mapping, I think I can answer
> this question.
> 
> Semantic annotations on WSDL will take the form of XML elements and
> attributes to be embedded in WSDL documents as appropriate. The
> information in these attributes and elements can also be caught in RDF
> and attached appropriately to the RDF form of the WSDL document. So
> basically the WSDL/XML extensions need equivalent WSDL/RDF extensions,
> which should be a few properties and classes above what the WSDL
> ontology provides.

This seems to be what's required to formalize the modelReference,
which, I speculated below (earlier), can be affixed to any part of the
component model. This seems to me to be a reasonable chunk of work for
a charter. (I'm suggesting limiting the charter to this work.) I can
imagine service selection tests like:
  read (foo.wsdl, bar.wsdl, baz.wsdl)
  match (input, http://bar.example/msgSmnts#bar)
  expect (bar.wsdl)

where bar.wsd is the only one that has an operation/input of a type
that has a modelReference of http://bar.example/msgSmnts#bar .
Service selection tests are exciting in themselves, but they proove
the necessary ingredients for composition.

> WSDL 2.0 RDF mapping does not deal with extensions in general, every
> extension has to have its own mapping if the information is to be
> representable in RDF usefully.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> Jacek
> 
> On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 14:42 +0100, Massimo Paolucci wrote:
> > The Web Services Description Working Group recently proposed a WSDL 2.0 RDF mapping [1].
> > The charter draft so far specifies:
> > 
> > > The Semantic Annotations for WSDL Working Group will provide an RDF mapping compatible with the RDF mapping for WSDL defined by the WSD Working Group.
> > What is the scope of such a compatibility?  What has to be done above and beyond 
> > WSDL 2.0 RDF mapping?
> > 
> > --- Massimo
> > 
> > 
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-wsdl20-rdf-20051104/
> > 
> > 
> > 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.
> > > 
> > >   
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: public-sws-ig-request@w3.org 
> > > > > [mailto:public-sws-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Carine Bournez
> > > > > Sent: 15 November 2005 14:15
> > > > > To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
> > > > > Cc: www-ws@w3.org
> > > > > Subject: [fwd] Draft charters for work on Semantics for WS
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is a copy of an announcement sent last week to the W3C 
> > > > > membership (on the member-ws@w3.org mailing list).
> > > > > All comments welcome! (for non members, on the 
> > > > > public-sws-ig@w3.org mailing list). Thank you.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >       
> > > > > > Following the announcement in [1], two charters have been drafted, 
> > > > > > corresponding to the two points previously described.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The first one is a Semantics for Web Services 
> > > > > >         
> > > > > Characterization Group.
> > > > >       
> > > > > > 	http://www.w3.org/2005/10/sws-charac-charter.html
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It specifically includes 4 issues to discuss.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The second one is Semantic Annotations for WSDL Working Group.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 	http://www.w3.org/2005/10/sa-ws-charter.html
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Discussion on both these charters should happen on this 
> > > > > >         
> > > > > mailing list 
> > > > >       
> > > > > > (member-ws@w3.org).
> > > > > > Thank you!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > [1] 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >         
> > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2005JulSep/0024.htm
> > > > >       
> > > > > > l
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >         
> > > > > ----- End forwarded message -----
> > > > > 
> > > > >       
> > > 
> > >   
> 

-- 
-eric

office: +81.466.49.1170 W3C, Keio Research Institute at SFC,
                        Shonan Fujisawa Campus, Keio University,
                        5322 Endo, Fujisawa, Kanagawa 252-8520
                        JAPAN
        +1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
cell:   +81.90.6533.3882

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.
Received on Friday, 18 November 2005 14:21:33 UTC