W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > September 2005

Re: WSDL RDF mapping draft

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:11:42 -0400
Message-Id: <1cacadda22c46ac16ee924e11c6ddcf2@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>, "WS-Description WG" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
To: "Asir Vedamuthu" <asirveda@microsoft.com>

On Sep 26, 2005, at 10:24 AM, Asir Vedamuthu wrote:

> Jacek,
>
> Thank you for posting this document. Reading through, I have few high
> level questions for you:
>
> (a) What are the differences between this draft and three other 
> previous
> proposals? Was it three or four?

It is an refinement and completion.

> (b) Was this draft produced with the help of RDF or Semantic Web
> Interest Group?

We presented the approach to the semantic web best practices working 
group at the tech plenary in boston. It had strong overlap with the 
Semantic Web Interest Group set of attendees (RDF interest group just 
*is* the SWIG now).

> (c) What is your plan of action to get this reviewed and approved when
> there are only two WSDL WG members from the Semantic Web domain?

Good question. My time has been, obviously, very constraint

> (d) Are there any implementations or product plans that the WG can use
> to demonstrate experience during the CR phase?

For the process  of developing the mapping tables, a person in my 
organization is also developing XSLT and XQuery scripts (suitable for 
using with GRDDL) for the transformation.

> (e) Is this a 'lossy' mapping from WSDL Component Model to RDF?

Yes. Well, mostly. It uses names and modeling techniques that are more 
congenial to people working with the rdf (I had an earlier version that 
strove to be a transliteration of the text where possible, but this was 
rejected by the semantic web best practices group). But it should be 
round-trippable (except for schema components, perhaps).

The *intention* is to be lossy.

> (f) What are the use cases for this mapping? What are the use cases for
> Appendix B, 'WSDL Files to RDF'? Does the Semantic Web community need
> both?

I can give several, but one that leaps to my mind is that the Data 
Access Working Group has talked about being able to do a kind of P2P 
query wherein one SPARQL server would have both content data (in rdf) 
and related service descriptions (in rdf) and one would query this 
server (using SPARQL) to find relevant related servers. Also for just 
querying the server about itself. They started a design for a service 
description language but were persuaded toward WSDL partly on the 
strength of being able to extend the mapping.

These are my quick answers.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Monday, 26 September 2005 15:16:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:37 GMT