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

RE: using RDF (OWL) in WSDL

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: 28 May 2003 23:11:45 +0200
To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1054156305.15963.33.camel@localhost>

Jonathan,

if the substitution group of an element is specified by its schema, why
should the RDF elements make a special case for WSDL? 

Anyway, our extensibility model works well for elements intended to
extend WSDL. We have the following options, I think:

     1. we can create an element intended for extending WSDL with RDF
        (my proposed wsdl:rdfDescription)
     2. we can create a placeholder for semantics (wsdl:semantics
        similar to wsdl:types)
     3. we could just put rdf:Description (or rdf:RDF) inside
        wsdl:documentation if that is the right place

Special-casing RDF doesn't feel right and isn't necessary anyway as
rdf:Description elements gain nothing from being placed in any
particular place in WSDL, that's why wsdl:semantics or
wsdl:rdfDescription would be better if we indeed see RDF as extending
WSDL. Option 3 indicates that we may see RDF statements as
documentation/annotations of WSDL components, but then the
wsdl:rdfDescription element would automatically supply the resource that
is being documented/annotated.

In the (envisioned) RDF mapping of WSDL, the additional statements would
be an integral part of the graph together with the WSDL statements and
since such statements need not originate in any of our addressable
components, wsdl:rdfDescription alone may not suffice.

I wish we were more familiar with this whole area, and I'm sorry I can't
be at the telcon tomorrow, I'd like to see *that* discussion. 8-)

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect
                   Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 21:05, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> 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
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2003 17:11:58 GMT

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