- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
- Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:03:47 +0200
- To: Holger Lausen <holger.lausen@deri.org>
- Cc: SAWSDL WG <public-ws-semann@w3.org>
Hi Holger, with the addition of the small RDF ontology for categories, I think your proposal makes a lot of sense. Anybody else has any opinion? 8-) Best regards, Jacek On Tue, 2006-05-30 at 18:00 +0200, Holger Lausen wrote: > Hi, > > to address the still pending action to start a discussion on issue 10 [1]: > > My proposal is to drop the recommendation to use the complex type > sawsdl:category for the annotation of wsdl:interface. Instead a model > reference should be used. We might publish a small rdfs ontology as > additional note that defines the structure of the semantic model similar > to what is done in the complex:type. > > Rational: > > * It is inconsistent to once talk about semantic models and to only > reference them (not assuming anything about how they are expressed) and > for category we require them to be expressed as xml instance of a > particular complex type. > > * It is arbitrary choice to define this structure for category, but not > for provider, availability, etc. > > kind regards > Holger > > (Sorry I end up repeating my arguments - but so far nobody could > convince me that they are invalid ;) > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/issues/#x10 > >
Received on Monday, 5 June 2006 16:03:57 UTC