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

RE: using RDF (OWL) in WSDL

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 12:05:06 -0700
Message-ID: <1113DDB24D4A2841951BFDF86665EE190658189F@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Why cannot anyone who wants to add rdf:Description to the appropriate
substitution group?  Why do we have to make a special case for RDF?  Is
our extensibility mechanism so broken that it fails its first test?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Christopher B Ferris
> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 6:11 AM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: using RDF (OWL) in WSDL
> 
> 
> Jacek,
> 
> Seems to me that Arthur has a point. Why not simply extend the WSDL
schema
> to allow for rdf:Description? Seems quite reasonable to me.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Christopher Ferris
> STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> phone: +1 508 234 3624
> 
> jacek Kopecky wrote on 05/28/2003 04:30:09 AM:
> 
> >
> > Arthur, I hadn't understood the action the way you presented it
below,
> > but I'll look into that too. Here's my initial thought:
> >
> > When we present the RDF mapping of WSDL, the OWL description of that
(in
> > other words the OWL schema for WSDL) will naturally include the
> > properties we cannot express in XML Schema.
> >
> > The area where the interaction of RDF and WSDL needs some work is
> > embedding RDF in WSDL, which is how I understood the action, even
when I
> > was writing it in IRC.
> >
> > Your alternative, i.e. to allow rdf:Description or rdf:RDF in the
XML
> > Schema schema for WSDL, would simplify the reuse of existing RDF
> > processors a bit, but then the syntax would usually look like this:
> >
> > <wsdl:message name="Foo">
> >  <rdf:Description rdf:about="<targetNamespaceOfFoo>#message(Foo)">
> >    <ns:responsibleArchitect
rdf:resource="mailto:jacek@systinet.com"/>
> >  </rdf:Description>
> > </wsdl:message>
> >
> > The rdf:Description element would not be tied to its parent message
in
> > any way then and it could be simpler if we just allowed rdf:RDF as a
> > child of wsdl:definitions or introducing wsdl:semantics element
which
> > would contain elements in any other namespace that would be assumed
to
> > contain semantic descriptions of the stuff defined in the parent
WSDL
> > document.
> >
> > With my proposal, wsdl:rdfDescription would be just another
> > extensibility element and the interaction with existing RDF
processors
> > would involve the WSDL processor rewriting the wsdl:rdfDescription
> > element to the rdf:Description element (see above) which is a
trivial
> > thing; and then passing the rewritten element to the RDF processor.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> >                    Jacek Kopecky
> >
> >                    Senior Architect
> >                    Systinet Corporation
> >                    http://www.systinet.com/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 18:46, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> > > Jacek,
> > >
> > > I thought the action was to look at using OWL in our WSDL
> > > Specification to encode the assertions that could not be expressed
> > > using XML Schema. It would be useful to have the additional
assertions
> > > encoded in a formal way so we could avoid natural language
> > > ambiguities, and maybe even have an OWL processor validate WSDL
> > > documents.
> > >
> > > Your proposal for putting RDF in WSDL is interesting, but wouldn't
it
> > > defeat existing RDF processors? Why not just change the WSDL
schema to
> > > allow RDF elements?
> > >
> > >
> > > Arthur Ryman
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jacek Kopecky
> > > <jacek@systinet.com>
> > > Sent by:
> > > www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> > >
> > > 05/27/2003 11:59 AM
> > >
> > >         To:
> > > WS-Description WG
> > > <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> > >         cc:
> > >         Subject:
> > > using RDF (OWL) in WSDL
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I was tasked to check how RDF statements (including OWL
statements)
> > > could be represented in WSDL. Here's what I found:
> > >
> > > RDF defines two XML elements which can be used to contain RDF
> > > statements
> > > - rdf:RDF and rdf:Description. As far as I can see, no XML Schema
for
> > > these elements (I've found only one at [1]) puts them into any of
the
> > > substitution groups for WSDL extensibility elements; therefore
these
> > > elements cannot be used as WSDL extensibility elements.
> > >
> > > As I think RDF statements should be embedded in WSDL using
> > > extensibility
> > > elements, I propose that we create an element wsdl:rdfDescription
in
> > > the
> > > substitution group globalExt. The semantics of this element would
be
> > > the
> > > same as of
> > >
> > > <rdf:Description rdf:about="URIref to the current WSDL
component">...
> > >
> > > Example:
> > >
> > > <wsdl:message name="Foo">
> > >  <wsdl:rdfDescription>
> > >    <ns:responsibleArchitect
rdf:resource="mailto:jacek@systinet.com"/>
> > >  </wsdl:rdfDescription>
> > > </wsdl:message>
> > >
> > > In English, the architect responsible for the WSDL message Foo is
me.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > >                   Jacek Kopecky
> > >
> > >                   Senior Architect
> > >                   Systinet Corporation
> > >                   http://www.systinet.com/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2003 15:05:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:24 GMT