W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2003

Re: Can someone recap the differences between @serviceGroup vs. definitions-targetNamespace ?

From: Jon Dart <jdart@tibco.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:49:26 -0700
Message-ID: <3F207086.4030804@tibco.com>
To: fred.carter@amberpoint.com
CC: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org

Umit Yalcinalp wrote:
> There may be many different rationales for grouping. However, when you introduce grouping with serviceGroup and the only
> relationship that is implied is "member of", then this begs the question of why we introduce the grouping at all when one can not
> not define multiple groupings of a services. Many relationships between services are needed, why is this named grouping? I would think then it would be more powerful to define them then externally to the definition of the service itself, hence RDF. 

I agree with this observation.

RDF makes possible a much richer set of relationships among services 
than WSDL can (without reinventing RDF, that is).

I liked "member of" better just because it was semantically rather 
neutral: it doesn't say why something is a member of a group. So it 
could be multi-purpose, and could encompass the "manipulates" 
relationship among others. (I was not persuaded that "manipulates" was 
uniquely useful).

But if you believe there will be a need for multiple simultaneous 
groupings, then surely something like RDF is more suitable. And perhaps 
the whole problem should be tackled at that level, external to WSDL.

Received on Thursday, 24 July 2003 19:49:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:43 UTC