W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-eds@w3.org > January 2006

2002/ws/desc/wsdl20 wsdl20-rdf.html,1.11,1.12

From: Jacek Kopecky via cvs-syncmail <cvsmail@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:54:17 +0000
To: public-ws-desc-eds@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1EuWVN-0003Nq-Nv@lionel-hutz.w3.org>

Update of /sources/public/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20
In directory hutz:/tmp/cvs-serv12991

Modified Files:
	wsdl20-rdf.html 
Log Message:
mostly fixing typos

Index: wsdl20-rdf.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/public/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-rdf.html,v
retrieving revision 1.11
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -C2 -d -r1.11 -r1.12
*** wsdl20-rdf.html	2 Nov 2005 12:40:35 -0000	1.11
--- wsdl20-rdf.html	5 Jan 2006 14:54:15 -0000	1.12
***************
*** 265,268 ****
--- 265,270 ----
  using the property <code>documentation</code>.</p>
  
+ <!-- todo move to extensions? -->
+ 
  <h4 id="description">2.1.1 Description class</h4>
  
***************
*** 279,283 ****
  the class <code>Description</code> in a knowledge base that contains the
  information from multiple WSDL documents. The core WSDL specification does not
! consider the case of combining multiple independent WSDL documents and that it
  doesn't mandate that independent documents describe consistently components
  with the same name. This is, however, an assumption when combining multiple
--- 281,285 ----
  the class <code>Description</code> in a knowledge base that contains the
  information from multiple WSDL documents. The core WSDL specification does not
! consider the case of combining multiple independent WSDL documents and it
  doesn't mandate that independent documents describe consistently components
  with the same name. This is, however, an assumption when combining multiple
***************
*** 458,462 ****
  extensions may alter the semantics of the extended components in ways that
  invalidate the existing semantics. Since the RDF representation of WSDL
! intends to represent the semantics of the WSDL data, components with unknown
  required extensions must be mapped to RDF according to the rules of the
  extension, not according to the rules specified in this document. This is to
--- 460,465 ----
  extensions may alter the semantics of the extended components in ways that
  invalidate the existing semantics. Since the RDF representation of WSDL
! intends to represent the semantics of the WSDL data, components with <!--
! todo unknown here conflicts with the rest of the sentence --> unknown
  required extensions must be mapped to RDF according to the rules of the
  extension, not according to the rules specified in this document. This is to
***************
*** 505,509 ****
  MEP IRI, the hash sign '#' and the actual message label, and these IRIs are
  referenced from the MEPs with the property <code>definesMessageLabel</code>.
! Any newly created MEPs should also provide URIs for the message labels, as
  the RDF mapping depends on being able to identify the message labels on
  interface message references.</p>
--- 508,512 ----
  MEP IRI, the hash sign '#' and the actual message label, and these IRIs are
  referenced from the MEPs with the property <code>definesMessageLabel</code>.
! Any newly created MEPs should also provide IRIs for the message labels, as
  the RDF mapping depends on being able to identify the message labels on
  interface message references.</p>
***************
*** 635,639 ****
  that is, the acceptance or rejection of component models. This includes type
  checking, consistency checking, and the verification of integrity
! constraints. The current set of Semantic Web langauges focus on inference
  and integration of information. To take a simple example, if a Z
  checkable representation of an Interface component lacks a {name} component
--- 638,642 ----
  that is, the acceptance or rejection of component models. This includes type
  checking, consistency checking, and the verification of integrity
! constraints. The current set of Semantic Web languages focus on inference
  and integration of information. To take a simple example, if a Z
  checkable representation of an Interface component lacks a {name} component
***************
*** 641,653 ****
  formed (given the WSDL specification). An OWL reasoner encountering it will, all
  other things being equal, conclude that there <em>is</em> such a
! property, albeit unknown.</p>
  
  <p>RDF, RDFS, or OWL documents using the ontology presented in this document
  may describe component models which are incomplete, or illegal, or contain
! extentions (new components, etc.). They may contain multiple unrelated
  Descriptions, that is, they may be aggregations of many unrelated WSDL
  documents. In general, Semantic Web based descriptions of Web services using
  the WSDL conceptual framework tend to be looser than what the 
! WSDL spec prescribes.</p>
  
  <p>Apart from this difference stemming from the fundamental intentional
--- 644,656 ----
  formed (given the WSDL specification). An OWL reasoner encountering it will, all
  other things being equal, conclude that there <em>is</em> such a
! property, even though the reasoner has not seen it yet.</p>
  
  <p>RDF, RDFS, or OWL documents using the ontology presented in this document
  may describe component models which are incomplete, or illegal, or contain
! extensions (new components, etc.). They may contain multiple unrelated
  Descriptions, that is, they may be aggregations of many unrelated WSDL
  documents. In general, Semantic Web based descriptions of Web services using
  the WSDL conceptual framework tend to be looser than what the 
! WSDL specification prescribes.</p>
  
  <p>Apart from this difference stemming from the fundamental intentional
***************
*** 660,664 ****
  <h3 id="diff-naming">3.1 Component naming</h3>
  
! <p>In the RD representation, all WSDL components are identified with their
  respective component designators (see todo ref), which are URIs generally
  constructed from the namespace and name of the component and from its parent
--- 663,667 ----
  <h3 id="diff-naming">3.1 Component naming</h3>
  
! <p>In the RDF representation, all WSDL components are identified with their
  respective component designators (see todo ref), which are URIs generally
  constructed from the namespace and name of the component and from its parent
***************
*** 721,725 ****
  which can be put together by the application as appropriate. If a piece of
  WSDL description uses an unknown component (an interface described in one
! document may extend other interface, not described in this document), the
  application may, if necessary, attempt to locate the description of the
  unknown component using its identifier IRI.</p>
--- 724,728 ----
  which can be put together by the application as appropriate. If a piece of
  WSDL description uses an unknown component (an interface described in one
! document may extend other interfaces, not described in this document), the
  application may, if necessary, attempt to locate the description of the
  unknown component using its identifier IRI.</p>
***************
*** 745,750 ****
  particular identifier IRIs, not represented as literals. For example, most
  instances representing components are identified with their component
! designators (see todo ref) and all references point directly there. The one
! notable exception are references to type definitions and element declarations
  (usually from XML Schema) which are represented as instances of our class
  <code>QName</code>, with both namespace and local part represented as
--- 748,753 ----
  particular identifier IRIs, not represented as literals. For example, most
  instances representing components are identified with their component
! designators (see todo ref) and all references point directly there. The 
! notable exceptions are references to type definitions and element declarations
  (usually from XML Schema) which are represented as instances of our class
  <code>QName</code>, with both namespace and local part represented as
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2006 14:54:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C0.50 : Thursday, 5 January 2006 14:54:25 GMT