W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-semann@w3.org > April 2006

Re: issue: type of modelReference attribute?

From: <jam@cs.uga.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 17:57:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200604192157.k3JLv6Ma019246@atlas.cs.uga.edu>
To: public-ws-semann@w3.org
Cc: jam@cs.uga.edu


Hi all,

This is a follow up to yesterday's teleconference which
discussed the merits of using URI's and/or QNames for
model references.  I have listed a couple of options
for you to comment on.

==========================================================

*** Option 1: modelReference = URI  (with QName supported)

Base the standard on URI's for model references, but
allow a URI to be abbreviated using a QName

  <qname> ::= <prefix> : <localName>

The following Web page discusses a way to "correctly map"
(they claim) a QName into a URI and should work for both
XML Schema and RDF (even though XML Schema and RDF do
things differently).

  http://www.openhealth.org/RDF/QNameQuagmire.html

Another longer discussion may be found in the following paper:

  http://www.metalex.nl/pages/reports/lexml-rdf-mt.pdf

==========================================================

*** Option 2: modelReference = URI (with QName NOT supported)

Do NOT support the use of QNames, only URI's

Since SAWSDL intends to support multiple languages,
using option 1's "trick" may lead to future trouble.

Then, in order to support the convenience and readability
that QNames afford, XML bases might be used instead,
as shown in the third example below (contrasted with
Full URI's and QNames).

1.  Full URI

 <xs:element name="processPurchaseOrderResponse" type="xs:string"
             wssem:modelReference="http://ontologies.com/PurchaseOrder.owl#OrderConfirmation"/>

2.  QName

 xmlns:POOntology="http://ontologies.com/PurchaseOrder.owl#">

 <xs:element name="processPurchaseOrderResponse" type="xs:string"
            wssem:modelReference="POOntology:OrderConfirmation"/>

3.  XML Base

I think Jacek mentioned we could use XML Base, but it seems like
that would only allow one namespace to be used (within a scope),
so if multiple ontologies are used, this might be problematic?

Here's an example from http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/

  xml:base="http://example.org/today/

==========================================================

Afterthought:

As discussed after yesterday's meeting, there are some subtle issues
with using QNames across individual standards.  From my reading,
I began to see some of the possible problems.  However, I wonder
if it could it be the case that they are not show stoppers and we
could still provide the convenience of QNames.  If someone could
give specific examples of problems likely to occur, that would be
helpful.

Thanks,
John Miller
Received on Thursday, 20 April 2006 22:52:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 17 April 2012 12:14:26 GMT