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

RE: Review of WSDL 2.0 - RDF Mapping

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:52:54 -0500
Message-ID: <A5EEF5A4F0F0FD4DBA33093A0B075590097B67B8@tayexc18.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Cc: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>, "WS-Description WG" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Jacek,

> From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek.kopecky@deri.org] 
> . . .
> I agree with you on both points, and that's why I'm unsure 
> whether we can present an XSLT stylesheet as the only 
> normative expression of the mapping, if it only works for 
> WSDL files with no known mandatory extensions.

I'm not understanding why you are reaching this conclusion.  Wouldn't
the exact same thing be true whether the mapping is normatively
expressed in XSLT or English prose?  If a mandatory extension changes
the semantics then the extension would have to provide a new mapping,
whether or not it is expressed in XSLT or English prose, wouldn't it?  I
suppose the new mapping could be expressed in terms of a set of diffs
from the old one, but again, this would be true of both XSLT and English
prose.  

Can you clarify why you think the situation is different if the XSLT is
normative?

thanks,
David Booth
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2006 17:55:17 GMT

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