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

Re: WS-Policy and SAWSDL

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:27:31 +0200
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
Message-Id: <1158139651.3962.72.camel@localhost>

Hi Bijan,

On Tue, 2006-09-12 at 12:31 +0100, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> 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)

On one level, in SAWSDL we want to attach concepts identified by URIs,
so we have an attribute (extending WSDL) that contains a list of URIs.
In Policy Attachment, they want to attach policies identified by URIs,
so they have an attribute (and element, too) that have, in a way, lists
of URIs. Structurally, they are very similar, but it's the same
similarity as that of two attributes age="number" and price="number" -
the structure is the same, but the intent of what can be done with the
number (what the number means) is different.

So on this level having different ways of attaching the URIs to WSDL
would be justified, I believe.

On a slightly different level: SAWSDL attaches concepts to WSDL
components, Policy attaches assertions to WSDL components (oh, and their
boolean combinations). Even if one might argue that the line between
additional semantics (SAWSDL concepts) and constraints and capabilities
(Policy assertions) is very blurry, we identify concepts with URIs
whereas they identify assertions with QNames, and they want to express
boolean combinations which we don't - isn't this enough for different
mechanisms for attaching these things to WSDL?

I must be missing something...

Received on Wednesday, 13 September 2006 09:27:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:54:17 UTC