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

Re: Agenda for SAWSDL telcon 2006/10/03

From: Xuan Shi <Xuan.Shi@mail.wvu.edu>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 12:45:05 -0400
Message-Id: <452109D10200003D0000199C@WVUGW01.wvu.edu>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>, "SAWSDL public list" <public-ws-semann@w3.org>

Jacek,

If this WG wants to test something different from those business models
like stokequote, buybook, buyticket, etc. you may wish to test your
SAWSDL by the following WSDLs:

http://www.arcwebservices.com/services/v2006/AddressFinder.wsdl 
http://arcweb.esri.com/services/v2/AddressFinder.wsdl 

These two versions of Web services contain exactly the same address
geocoding function. In version 2006, the function has a name as
"findLocationByAddress". In its 2nd version, however, the name was
"findAddress". Both functions take three input variables, but can you
tell us that by adding semantic annotations into WSDL, SAWSDL can
clearly define that "token" (one of the three input variables) is
actually an outcome generate by another Web service? Can you find where
is this hidden Web service in these two WSDLs? 

By tracking these two WSDL documents, I think you and others can
understand how to derive the lat/lon values from the output object
"LocationInfo" in version 2 and "GeocodeInfo" in version 2006. 

How many meaningless object data types or elements in both WSDL
documents? They are meaningless because they have little relation with
the semantics of the service - provide your address and it will tell you
the lat/lon of your address. 

Then how and why do you plan to add semantic annotations onto those
"meaningless" elements in WSDL?

How about the following WSDL? It's another address geocoding Web
service with the same service semantics - provide your address and it
will tell you the lat/lon of your address.

http://rpc.geocoder.us/dist/eg/clients/GeoCoder.wsdl

You see - in W3C documentation @ http://www.w3.org/TR/wsci/, it said
"WSDL describes the static interface of a Web Service." 

Everyone knows WSDL is ONLY a description of service interface. The
same service can have different service interface, while the same
service interface can implement different services and functions. As I
reminded you before, SAWSDL may lead to semantic chaos as you said every
developer has the absolute right to define something differently. And
it's demonstrated now by the above 3 WSDL documents. 

But ontology is a formalized, shared specification of a
conceptualization for the knowledge domain. These address geocoding Web
services share the same conceptualization for the knowledge domain, as
well as for other services like hotel reservation, etc. However, does
SAWSDL promote the sharing of "shared" conceptualization? Adding
semantic annotation into individual WSDL documents goes to the contrary
direction - it promotes the dissemination of individual definition on
varied service interface, not a "shared" ontology of a domain of the
service.

When you want to demonstrate that SAWSDL is helpful to realize the goal
of Semantic Web services, you may wish to use these existing Web
services in real practice. Do not assume all Web services look like
"stokequote" or "buyticket" kind of services. That's my personal review
comments for your kind attention.

FYI - 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sws-ig/2006Aug/0055.html 

Regards,

Xuan



>>> Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org> 10/2/2006 11:47 AM >>>

Agenda for SAWSDL telcon 2006/10/03. 
Dial-in information (member-only) [1]
Zakim instructions [2]

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-semann/2006Sep/0037 
[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/01/UsingZakim 


----------------------------------------
1. Call setup
 - Scribe list: (inactive:) JBD, JL, MK, JH, NG, TP, 
                (active:)   CP, TV, BNS, AS, RA, LH, 
                            LF, CB, JF, CV, EP, HL
 - Any modifications to agenda?
   - Especially reordering of agenda items
 - Any other business?


----------------------------------------
2. Approval of minutes 
 - Minutes of last call [1]

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/minutes/20060926 


----------------------------------------
3. Action Item Review
 - Action item list [1]

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/admin/#Actions 

2006-07-11: EricP to add text gravy to his annotated Amazon WSDL and
put it
            in Examples document
 - pending?

2006-08-15: EricP to get feedback from XMLCore about attrExtensions
element
 - pending? 


----------------------------------------
4. Administrivia
 - Next f2f Nov 13-14, Athens, GA, USA
 - Canceling telcons 2006/10/10, 2006/11/7
 - Documents published successfully
   - Reviews within your organizations will be welcome


----------------------------------------
5. Relation of SAWSDL to WS-MEX
 - Email from Eric [1]
   - Seems like there is little relation
 - How should we (the WG) handle comments [2] on WS-MEX from Eric?
   - Should the WG send them or should Eric?

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-semann/2006Sep/0014 
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-semann/2006Sep/0016 


----------------------------------------
6. Implementation Criteria? [1]
 - After Last Call, we will go into Candidate Recommendation
   - Gathering implementation experience
   - We need to set up criteria for exit
 - We should start thinking what it means for SAWSDL to be implemented
   - Parsing/authoring API? More?
   - What do current implementations [2,3] do?
   - What do we plan to do?
 - Should any of this be tackled in the Usage Guide?

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-semann/2006Oct/0001 
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-semann/2006Jul/0008 
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-semann/2006Sep/0019 
Received on Monday, 2 October 2006 16:45:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 17 April 2012 12:14:27 GMT