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

Re: issue: embedding semantic descriptions?

From: Holger Lausen <holger.lausen@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:41:25 +0200
Message-ID: <444E2705.8090304@deri.org>
To: Rama Akkiraju <akkiraju@us.ibm.com>
CC: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>, SAWSDL WG <public-ws-semann@w3.org>
Hi,

I agree with Rama that two many objections might confuse however helping
the client processor resolving the logically URI in the model reference
or the schema mapping is worth some effort.

I would support option 2 (container element), since this would be in the
spirit of the WSDL 2 component model. Additionally to the container
element <sawsdl:models>, I would suggest to also specify a mechanism
similar to xmi:schemaLocation that gives a hint to the client processor
where to resolve the logical URI used in the references. Such an
attribute could be named sawsdl:modelLocation.

best
  Holger


Rama Akkiraju wrote:
> Jacek,
> 
> All three options you outlined are viable options and theoretically I don't
> see a problem with supporting them all. But this raises a concern regarding
> how flexible the spec should be. If it is so flexible and lets you do the
> same thing in 10 different ways, it is very confusing. This may also open
> up cases where annotations get out of synch. What if someone creates
> external annotations and embedded annotations in the same language for the
> same concept but they are not consistent? Then, we have to specify all
> sorts of conflict resolution rules that cannot be enforced. I think from a
> practical usability point of view, it is better to restrict choice to keep
> things simple.
> 
> Since we cannot prevent people from using the option 1 that you have
> outlined, we probably should note it as a recognized practice in the
> document but not go beyond that to keep things simple.
> 
> Regards
> Rama Akkiraju
> 
> public-ws-semann-request@w3.org wrote on 04/17/2006 12:03:36 PM:
> 
>> Hi, to bring one possibly contentious issue in the open, I suggest that
>> we consider whether we want to allow embedded semantic descriptions or
>> whether we want to restrict SAWSDL to just URI references to external
>> things?
>>
>> Currently we have modelReference and schemaMapping that contain a URI.
>> I see a number of additional options that are not necessarily exclusive:
>>
>> 1) we can document that these URIs may point to elements within the WSDL
>> file with a particular ID, so we could for example put a model or an
>> XSLT stylesheet inside wsdl:description, put an xml:id on it and then
>> refer to that ID with a fragment identifier in a URI.
>>
>> <wsdl:description ...>
>>   <xsl:stylesheet xml:id="transformation">
>>     ...
>>   </xsl:stylesheet>
>>   <wsdl:types>
>>     <xs:schema ...>
>>       <xs:element sawsdl:schemaMapping="#transformation" .../>
>>     </xs:schema>
>>   </wsdl:types>
>>   ...
>> </wsdl:description>
> 
>> 2) we can provide a container element akin to wsdl:types that would
>> contain semantic descriptions defining some URIs that could then be the
>> values of modelReference
>>
>> <wsdl:description ...>
>>   <sawsdl:models>
>>     <wsml:wsml ...>
>>       <wsml:concept id="http://example.com/foobar"/>
>>     </wsml:wsml>
>>   </sawsdl:models>
>>   <wsdl:types>
>>     <xs:schema ...>
>>       <xs:element sawsdl:modelReference="http://example.com/foobar" .../>
>>     </xs:schema>
>>   </wsdl:types>
>>   ...
>> </wsdl:description>
> 
>> 3) we can provide an element equivalent to the modelReference attribute
>> (and similarly for the schemaMapping attribute) that would contain the
>> actual semantic description (or transformation) without the necessity of
>> giving it any URI.
>>
>> <wsdl:description ...>
>>   <wsdl:types>
>>     <xs:schema ...>
>>       <xs:element ...>
>>         <sawsdl:schemaMapping>
>>           <xsl:stylesheet>
>>             ...
>>           </xsl:stylesheet>
>>         </sawsdl:schemaMapping>
>>       </xs:element>
>>     </xs:schema>
>>   </wsdl:types>
>>   ...
>> </wsdl:description>
> 
> 
>> Note that option 1 requires no new elements or attributes from us, it
>> would be just documentation for recognized practice. However, option 2
>> could be more compatible with the WSDL 2 component view of the
>> documents. Finally, option 3 is really here just for consideration in
>> case somebody else is interested in pursuing it.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Jacek Kopecký
>>
>> --
>> Digital Enterprise Research Institute
>> University of Innsbruck, Austria
>> Phone: +43 512 5076481
>> Org:   http://www.deri.org/
>> Blog:  http://jacek.cz/blog/
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Holger Lausen

Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI)
http://www.deri.org/

Tel:   +43 512 5076464
Email: holger.lausen@deri.org


Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2006 13:41:40 GMT

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