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 18:16:11 -0500
Message-ID: <A5EEF5A4F0F0FD4DBA33093A0B075590097B67BF@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] 
> . . .
> 1) A component with a known extension is mapped according to 
> the rules specified by the extension.

Yes, that makes sense.

> 2) A component with unknown optional extension is mapped as 
> if the extension wasn't there (we assume optional extensions 
> don't change the
> semantics) and the extension is added there as XMLLiteral (or 
> as string literal for extension attributes)

Oh, I see.  Sort of like a null mapping?  I.e., whatever was given in
the WSDL is what you get in the RDF?  I see.  That seems like a good
default way to map unknown optional extensions, as it at least gives you
something in the RDF that corresponds to the extension.  I was not
assuming that you would provide such a mapping, but it seems like a good
idea.  I was assuming that if you wanted the resulting RDF to contain
information about the optional extension then you would use an
additional mapping specifically for that extension.

> 3) A component with unknown mandatory extension is not mapped at all.
> 
> The XSLT that we can provide will know the extensions for the 
> bindings etc., but it won't know any user extensions. I'm not 
> sure how to make it extensible, so that users would be able 
> to plug in their stylesheets for components with the 
> extensions that they know. I suspect it'll be easier for such 
> user just to tweak our stylesheet than to try to plug into 
> our extensibility points.

I'm a little nervous about users modifying your main stylesheet for
optional extensions, because that makes it seem like they may be
modifying the overall semantics (such as for with mandatory extensions).

Here is what I would envision for XSLT stylesheets:

A. Basic Mapping.
	Domain: WSDL.  Range: RDF.
	Maps WSDL and known extensions to RDF.

B. Default Optional Extension Mapping.
	Domain: WSDL.  Range: RDF.
	Maps optional extensions to RDF (just a null mapping).  
	Resulting RDF should be combined with the RDF produced 
	by the Basic Mapping.

C. Mapping for Optional Extension X.
	Domain: WSDL.  Range: RDF.
	Maps optional extension X to RDF.  Resulting RDF should
	be combined with the RDF produced by the Basic Mapping.
	Users would probably create this mapping 
	by modifying the XSLT for the Default Optional
	Extension Mapping.

D. Mapping for Mandatory Extension Y.
	Domain: WSDL.  Range: RDF.
	Maps WSDL, known extensions and extension Y to RDF.
	This mapping would be used instead of the Basic
	mapping.  Users would probably create this mapping 
	by modifying the XSLT for the Basic Mapping.

And of course, you would only provide A and B.  Users would supply C and
D if desired.  Does this make sense?  Is this different from what you
were thinking?  I'm just trying to understand what you mean and
reconcile it with what I was expecting.

Thanks,
David Booth
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2006 23:18:33 GMT

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