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

Re: issue: externally defined semantic annotations

From: Rama Akkiraju <akkiraju@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 23:19:46 -0400
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Cc: SAWSDL WG <public-ws-semann@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF0268C708.5A4B8EEE-ON8525715B.0012429D-8525715B.00124A7B@us.ibm.com>

Jacek,

That's fine. Thank you.

Regards
Rama Akkiraju





                                                                           
             Jacek Kopecky                                                 
             <jacek.kopecky@de                                             
             ri.org>                                                    To 
                                       Rama Akkiraju/Watson/IBM@IBMUS      
             04/21/2006 12:46                                           cc 
             PM                        SAWSDL WG <public-ws-semann@w3.org> 
                                                                   Subject 
                                       Re: issue: externally defined       
                                       semantic annotations                
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




Hi Rama,

thanks for writing this up. I've logged it as issue 4 at
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/issues/#x4

I believe the point you quote from the charter bars us from defining an
actual language for expressing semantic models, akin to OWL or WSML or
UML. The word "external" in that line refers to the external semantics
to which our annotations (within WSDL) will point to, not to where the
pointers are to be located.

So this particular sentence doesn't stop us from creating a standalone
format for capturing the annotation pointers, tying WSDL components and
semantic model entities, outside the actual WSDL file.

However, the scope gives us the task "to define one or more properties
of WSDL 2.0 components to point to additional semantics", which means
"within WSDL 2.0 documents", as WSDL doesn't have a mechanism to gather
properties of components from external, non-WSDL files.

Therefore I now plan to suggest in the next teleconference that we
postpone issue 4 until we're done with our SAWSDL spec, as an external
format would constitute new work, and probably a significant new XML
language. We can reconsider this issue when we think of what to do next.

Please note that I'm not expressing any judgment on the relative
advantages or disadvantages of such an external format.

Is this all right with you? 8-)

Thanks,

Jacek

On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 17:09 -0400, Rama Akkiraju wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> The charter (http://www.w3.org/2005/10/sa-ws-charter#out) says "define a
> new semantic data model or format for externally defined semantics" is
out
> of scope. I would like some clarification on 'externally defined
> semantics'. Does this mean externally defined semantic annotations? or
> externally defined semantics as in  semantic models/ontologies that are
> created and maintained external to the WSDL? I suspect the former. If so,
> at the risk of opening up an out-of-scope item for discussion again, I
> would like to bring up the issue of support for out-of-band annotation
> approach(es) that was discussed earlier on SWS interest group. One can
> create and maintain separate files for associating annotations with WSDL
> files. This could be an alternate approach to modifying the WSDL to
> associate annotations. (eg: X-path expressions could be used in the
> out-of-band approach to associate annotations with elements in a WSDL
> file). Service registry developers and vendors may find this very useful
> because they may want to use these files for keeping other metadata about
> WSDL files and this allows them to keep it all in one place. Customers
that
> already have many WSDLs may also prefer this approach than going back and
> modifying all their WSDLs.  This could aid in adoption as well. We could
> support this in addition to the approach we are already taking with
> extending WSDLs.
>
> What are people's thoughts on this?
>
> Regards
> Rama Akkiraju
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2006 03:20:40 GMT

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