W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2006

Re: Review of WSDL 2.0 - RDF Mapping

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 16:59:42 +0100
To: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
Cc: WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1138895982.3956.42.camel@localhost>

Hi David,

On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 15:46 -0500, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)
wrote:
> The document clearly says that the ontology is less constraining than
> the WSDL 2.0 specfication.  I wonder: would it be feasible to itemize
> the constraints that are present in the specification but not enforced
> by the ontology?  To what extent would this be feasible?  If it is
> feasible I think it would provide greater insight into the ontology. 

I've made a fast first cut at section 3.5 which will list these
constraints. The full current text follows. Can you please indicate if
this is what you had in mind? 8-)

Best regards,

Jacek

Section 3.5 from the editors' draft:

3.5 WSDL restrictions not enforced by the ontology

As already mentioned, the validation-oriented WSDL specification and
especially its Z formalization capture a number of restrictions and
limitations that are not expressed in the RDF ontology. The following is
a sample listing of such restrictions and limitations:

      * In WSDL, an interface is always a different thing from a binding
        (even if they have the same name), and they will stay different
        when mapped from a WSDL file to RDF. In the ontology, however,
        one can assert that one resource is both an interface and a
        binding and this introduces no RDF-level inconsistency.
      * In WSDL, a Description cannot directly contain interface
        operations or endpoints, for example; an endpoint is always in a
        service and interface operations are always in interfaces. The
        ontology does not enforce these restrictions so one can create
        an RDF file that will be consistent with the ontology but will
        violate this restriction.
Received on Thursday, 2 February 2006 15:59:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:38 GMT