W3C

Web Services Description WG call - RDF mapping

2 Feb 2006

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Allen Brookes, Rogue Wave Software
Glen Daniels, Sonic Software
Paul Downey, British Telecommunications
Hugo Haas, W3C
Jacek Kopecky, DERI Innsbruck at the Leopold-Franzens-Universitšt Innsbruck, Austria
Amelia Lewis, TIBCO
Jonathan Marsh, Co-chair/Microsoft
Bijan Parsia, University of Maryland MIND Lab
Tony Rogers, Co-chair/Computer Associates
Regrets
Arthur Ryman, IBM
Chair
Jonathan
Scribe
Hugo

Contents


 

 

<scribe> Scribe: Hugo

Action items

<scribe> ACTION: JacekK to detail (e.g. in a list) what constraints of the component model are not enforced by the WSDL ontology. [IN PROGRESS] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/02-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]

<scribe> ACTION: JacekK to add an example to the RDF Mapping. [PENDING] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/02-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]

Administrivia - Schedule

Jonathan: I wanted to talk about schedule
... when do we envision a LC WD?

Jacek: Bijan, when do you think that we'll have the mapping tables?

Bijan: they're pretty close to being ready

Jonathan: who's doing that?

Bijan: a graduate student at my school

Jonathan: we'll need to ack him
... maybe he'll be interested in joining the WG
... so what state will we be in at the end of the month?

Jacek: it can be mostly done by the TP
... shortly after the TP, we could aim for LC

Jonathan: a detailed review at the TP will be welcome
... and we can go to LC 1 month later

Hugo: I wanted to update the WG with rechartering thoughts
... we're going to propose to the AC not to keep the RDF mapping on the Rec track in the end
... the message will go out real soon now

Jonathan: but it doesn't change our goal to go to LC

Hugo: that's correct

Jonathan: w.r.t. RDF task force, Tony will be chairing the meetings starting next meeting

Issue 283: Review of WSDL 2.0 - RDF Mapping: General comments

[ Feeling in the WG that XSLT isn't the way forward ]

Jacek: David would like to see a mapping from XMLspec to the RDF
... I believe that mapping the component model is cleaner

Bijan: I agree that we should close with no action

Jonathan: XSLT seems like an interesting implementation

Jacek: I don't think that the pain is worth it

Jonathan: also, the edge cases in XSLT are tricky
... was there more than using XSLT in this issue?

Jacek: I think that we can answer David and tell him that no, we will not have a normative XSLT
... but the rest of the issue should be open

Bijan: we should add some text saying that the mappings are not designed for validation of the component model

RESOLUTION: Issue 283: no to a definitive list of unenforced constraints, and yes to a general statement saying that there may be unenforced constraints with a couple of examples
... Issue 283: no to a normative XSLT

<scribe> ACTION: Jacek to implement resolution for issue 283 (above) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/02-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]

RESOLUTION: issue 283 is closed

this makes Jacek's first action item unneeded

Issue 284: Review of WSDL 2.0 - RDF Mapping: Comments by Section

Jacek: comment about "Section 1. Introduction"
... I agree it would be nice, but I'm not sure where to do it
... I declined to do that
... "Section 3. Differences from the WSDL Component Model"

[missed that]

scribe: "Section 3.1 Component naming"
... I think that this issue is against the component designators, not the RDF mapping
... "Appendix A: the owl ontology source"
... this is still open in the context of another issue
... I believe that we can close this issue with the editorial changes made
... the last part is covered by issue 286

Jonathan: so do you want to close it now or leave it open?

Jacek: I think that it's fine closing it

Bijan: I agree that we should close the issue

RESOLUTION: issue 284 closed with editorial changes

<scribe> ACTION: Jonathan to close issue 285 in the issues list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/02-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]

ACTION- 5

Issue 286: Reusing Part-Whole ontology?

Jacek: the annotations WG will come up with an ontology a whole and a part

Bijan: I'm not sure that I agree that it's exactly the same
... and I'm a little nervous on taking a dependency here
... I think that it would be better to keep it more closely tied to our spec

Jacek: if we keep our ontology, if we want to use their whole-part ontology, then we'll have a problem because it will be overloaded
... from service to interface and from @@@ to @@@

Bijan: if they're different, then we should introduce a new relationship

Jacek: in any case, we should not use the part-whole ontology just yet

Bijan: I agree

RESOLUTION: Issue 286 closed; not doing it yet

Issue 287: Modularization of the ontology?

Jacek: I haven't had time to look into that yet
... we could separate the bindings into separate modules
... but I'm not sure how many modules would make sense

Bijan: I don't think that it's really worth it
... and I don't think that it's appropriate
... trying to split along namespaces doesn't make sense
... if you want to do some separation, I can run it against our analysis tool and see what happens

<scribe> ACTION: Bijan to run the partitioning analysis on ontology [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/02-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]

Issue 288: WSDL RDF mapping issue: coordination with SOAP WG

Jacek: we need a URI to point to the idea of SOAP MEP
... we asked them to bless our URI, but they declined because of a TAG recommendation
... they promised to give us a URI

Jonathan: so we should leave this one open until we get the URI from them then

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Bijan to run the partitioning analysis on ontology [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/02-ws-desc-minutes.html#action05]
[NEW] ACTION: Jacek to implement resolution for issue 283 (above) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/02-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Jonathan to close issue 285 in the issues list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/02-ws-desc-minutes.html#action04]
 
[PENDING] ACTION: JacekK to add an example to the RDF Mapping. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/02-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
[PENDING] ACTION: JacekK to detail (e.g. in a list) what constraints of the component model are not enforced by the WSDL ontology. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/02/02-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2006/02/02 16:53:34 $