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

RE: Review of WSDL 2.0 - RDF Mapping

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 17:21:06 -0500
Message-ID: <A5EEF5A4F0F0FD4DBA33093A0B075590097B6832@tayexc18.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Cc: "WS-Description WG" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>

Responses below.

> From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek.kopecky@deri.org]  
> 
> Hi David, 
> 
> below are my comments on your comments by section, currently 
> all together tracked as issue 284 [1]. I have updated the 
> editors' draft [2] in some places to address your comments; 
> as detailed below.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x284
> [2] 
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20
> -rdf.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
> 
> On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 15:46 -0500, Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)
> wrote:
> > COMMENTS BY SECTION
> > Section 1. Introduction:
> > Good motivation.  If the creation of WSDL2.0-->RDF mapping helped to
> > expose unnoticed issues in the WSDL 2.0 definition, that 
> would be good
> > to mention also.
> 
> Sorry, while it could be nice, it doesn't really fit in the content...

Okay.  :)

> 
> > Section 2.2 Handling Features, Properties and Generic Extensions:
> > Good overview of WSDL 2.0 extensibility.
> 
> Thanks. 8-)
> 
> > Section 3. Differences from the WSDL Component Model:
> > I found myself getting confused about whether a paragraph was 
> > discussing the RDF that results from mapping a legal WSDL document, 
> > versus arbitrary RDF that might be written using the 
> ontology and thus 
> > may not correspond to any legal WSDL document.  The document as a 
> > whole is about the mapping from legal WSDL documents, and thus as a 
> > reader I kept expecting to be reading about the RDF that 
> results from 
> > mapping a legal WSDL document.
> 
> I introduced explicit distinction between RDF graphs 
> resulting from mapping valid WSDL documents, and arbitrary 
> RDF graphs that follow our ontology, and mentioned that sec 3 
> is only about the former.

Thanks.

> 
> > Section 3.1 Component naming:
> > Re: "The original names and namespaces are not explicitly 
> modeled in 
> > the RDF representation" I found myself wondering which 
> namespace this 
> > section was discussing, but I think it is referring to the 
> > wsdl:targetNamespace.  It would be good to clarify.
> 
> I switched name and namespace in the sentence, should now be 
> clear that both are "of the component".

Thanks.

> 
> > I notice that in section 3.1 the ontology runs into the 
> issue of the 
> > dependency between the meaning of a hash URI and the mime 
> type of the 
> > content that is returned from that URI, and thus the need to 
> > dereference the URI to determine the mime type.  This is 
> exactly the 
> > kind of problem I describe in my discussion of how 
> URIs/IRIs should be 
> > minted: 
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Dec/0056.html
> 
> This may be raised as an issue against the component 
> designators section in part 1, but we are assuming in WSDL 
> that the namespace URI will in fact point to the WSDL file, 
> therefore the "hash-URI" problem may not be a problem for us.

Okay.

> 
> > Section 3.2 Documents, imports and includes:
> > I don't understand this sentence: "Strictly speaking, 
> interfaces don't 
> > need to belong to any Description, and interface operations don't 
> > actually need to belong to any interface in the RDF 
> representation.". 
> > Is it referring to your ontology in general or to your mapping?  I 
> > thought a wsdl:interface MUST belong to a wsdl:description, 
> so I would 
> > think that in any RDF resulting from applying the mapping that you 
> > describe, each interface *would* belong to a Description and each 
> > interface operation *would* belong to an interface.  In 
> retrospect, it 
> > looks like that sentence is referring to the ontology in general.  
> > This is an example of the confusion I mentioned under section 3.1 
> > above.
> 
> Rewritten, offending text judged unnecessary, removed, partly 
> added as example in sec. 3. 8-)

THanks.

> 
> > I don't understand the implications of section 3.2.
> 
> Is it better now, after the rewrite?

The rewritten text is clearer.  But now I'm wondering: If WSDL document
A imports/includes WSDL documents B and C, will the RDF mapping for A
include the information from B and C? 

> 
> > Appendix A: the owl ontology source:
> > I notice that a lot of properties have rdfs:range defined, but not 
> > rdfs:domain.  I assume this is because these properties could be 
> > applied to more than one class.  Would it make sense to create some 
> > superclasses for these, so that the rdfs:domains can be specified?
> 
> Yes, some of the properties can be applied to multiple 
> classes. I choose not to introduce superclasses for such 
> things. For example, the "binding" property points to a 
> Binding both from its parent Description and from and 
> endpoint that uses the Binding. I don't think there is a 
> useful superclass for Description and Endpoint for the 
> purpose of being able to point to a Binding.
> 
> However, this may change if we adopt the part-whole ontology 
> by eliminating the "binding" property of Description and 
> instead using "is_part_of_directly".

Okay.

> 
> Hope it helps,
> 
> Jacek

Yes, thanks!

David Booth
Received on Monday, 6 February 2006 22:26:01 GMT

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