W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sws-ig@w3.org > September 2006

WS-Policy and SAWSDL

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:31:51 +0100
Message-Id: <A74D7C11-0F33-499B-ADF6-71D607F955F7@isr.umd.edu>
To: public-sws-ig@w3.org

I raised an issue in WS-Policy about the relation between WS-Policy  
attachment. The issue is more or less resolved with this email:

	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0051

In particular:

"""We have discussed the relation between
Policy and Semantic Annotations briefly at our recent f2f meeting and we
came to the conclusion that we are attaching different things to WSDL,
even though both specs are general enough that they could be bent to
perform similar functions.

The major difference is in the intention of the attached information.
SAWSDL aims to enhance the description e.g. for discovery (even if on
the XML level the WSDL wouldn't match), whereas Policy aims show what
restrictions there are when the WSDL is followed e.g. in invocation.

I guess I could say the basic difference is similar to the difference
between XML Schema and OWL."""""

Now, I accept that the two WGs don't want to work on it. I certainly  
don't want to work on it :) But I find this reply to be a bit strange  
for the following reasons:
	1) Why should the different *intentions* of a representation matter  
to how it's related to the WSDL?
	2) Do they have different intentions, really?
	3) Is the analogy between XML Schema and OWL correct?
		(I think not since the difference between XML Schema and OWL is in  
the *semantics*, not in the intent)

There are others, but I thought the interest group might have some  
ideas. I rather suspect that SWSs as a distinct area are in danger of  
simply being left behind. I we can't handle/work with Policy...what  
*are* we going to do?

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2006 11:32:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 16 March 2008 00:11:06 GMT