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

Re: issue 18: Relation of multiple modelReferences

From: Laurent Henocque <laurent.henocque@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:07:10 +0200
Message-ID: <448E8E4E.2030208@gmail.com>
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
CC: SAWSDL public list <public-ws-semann@w3.org>

Hash: SHA1

Again, some pragmatic moves:

I understand that it could be harmful to freeze in marble constructs that would conflict with the average use, in an
unknown future.

For that reason, I am ready to accept the idea that model references are not grouped in 'contexts'. It is clear that in
so doing, we defer any selection of references to uri parsing or distant file querying. I am very unhappy with abusing
string or uri parsing, and I guess that distant file querying may pose problems as well (availability?). But these are
not major problems.

What we need to however, is to prepare for smooth evolution. I hence strongly support lifting modelReferences from
attributes to elements, as you corrected me:

<element name="fullName" type="xsd:string">

In so doing, we would smoothly prepare for evolution or extension by extra attributes, hence allowing to defer choices
relevant with the relationship between modelReferences.

Hoping that it will help moving forward.


Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> Hi all,
> to kick off discussion about issue 18 [1], here's how I see it:
> Inside a single WSDL file (plus the imports/includes), all information
> is taken to be applicable "together", so to speak. If we specify
> modelReferences on a number of operations, they all apply in
> conjunction. Therefore it seems that in absence of any text to the
> contrary, multiple modelReference values on a single component also
> apply in conjunction. For example:
> <element name="fullName" type="xsd:string" 
>   sawsdl:modelReference="ontology#FullName ontology#FirstName ontology#LastName"/>
> This says that all the three URIs describe the element fullName.

I am not willing to insist further about the requirement for 'contexts'

> Further, unless we say anything else, there is no additional
> relationship to the different model references, independent of whether
> they are in the same ontology or not, or indeed if they are from the
> same ontological model or not. (Think WSML ontologies vs. OWL vs. UML.)
> The ontologies may specify relationships, for example that FullName
> consists of FirstName and LastName, but SAWSDL, as it stands, does not
> constrain such relationships, nor does it add anything to them.
> If they are inconsistent (and inconsistencies can manifest across
> ontologies or ontological systems as well), we should consider the
> SAWSDL description invalid.
> Therefore I don't see that SAWSDL specifies any relationsip of multiple
> modelReference values, and I especially don't see why we should
> differentiate between modelReference values from the same ontology or
> from different ones, as has been mentioned in some discussions.
> Best regards,
> Jacek
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/issues/#x18

- --
Laurent Henocque
Maître de Conférences Hdr
tel: +33 6 83 88 20 01
Enseignant à l'Ecole Supérieure d'Ingénieurs de Luminy - Marseille
Chercheur au Laboratoire des Sciences de l'Information et des Systèmes - Marseille

clé publique open pgp / open pgp public key :
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

Received on Tuesday, 13 June 2006 10:07:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:45 UTC