Re: SAWSDL Last Call

Hi All,

I happened to go through the SAWSDL spec and had a few thoughts to share.

a) Is it worth capturing semantics of user-defined [and possibly predefined]
Message Exchange patterns defined by WSDL2.0 within SAWSDL? - esp. the
former variant. Since MEPs can be "re-used" across operations within/across
services, wd it be better to capture the semantics of these separate from
the annotations for each operation that uses them ?

On a parallel thought, how plausible wd it be to state in the WSDL spec that
the IRI for an MEP MAY [yes, its a MAY :-) ] be derefencible to a
machine/human understandable document that describes the semantics of the
MEP ? [similar to the "targetNamespace" attribute for the description]



On 10/16/06, Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com> wrote:
>
>
> I have an action item to review SAWSDL, hereby discharged.  In section 2.1
> ,
> SAWSDL says:
>
> "In terms of the WSDL 2.0 component model, a model reference is a new
> property. In particular, when used on an element that represents a WSDL
> 2.0
> Component (e.g. wsdl:interface, wsdl:operation, top-level xsd:element,
> etc.), the modelReference extension attribute introduces an OPTIONAL
> property {model reference} whose value is a set of URIs taken from the
> value
> of the attribute. The absence of the {model reference} property is equal
> to
> its presence with an empty value."
>
> 1) Editorially, it would be nice to refer to WSDL 2.0 Components by name
> instead of by their corresponding element.  Esp. in the case of xsd:*,
> there
> is both a WSDL component and a Schema component, so by naming an xsd
> element
> it's not clear which component one might be referring to (the context
> makes
> it clear in this case, but still, we invented names for components, you
> might as well use them!)  The same style can also apply to the last
> paragraph of section 2.2.
>
> 2) Secondly, there are two ways to interpret the last
> sentence.  Presumably,
> an empty attribute would result in the presence of an empty {model
> reference} property, which would be _semantically_ equivalent to no {model
> reference} property.   However, it might also be interpreted that in this
> situation the property could simply be omitted from the component
> model.  We
> had some similar text in places in WSDL that gave us a bit of a headache
> in
> the interchange format, which requires a canonical component model.
> Basically, two processors that are both SAWSDL aware might have different
> component models - one might omit {model reference} and one might include
> it
> with an empty value.  This could be dealt with in the comparison algorithm
> between two component models, but we've found it easier to just define a
> single clear mapping from XML to the component model.  In this case, for
> instance, you could state "when non-empty and used on an element..." and
> simply omit the last sentence, or you could state "The absence of the
> {model
> reference} property is semantically equivalent to its presence with an
> empty
> value."  The former seems cleaner to me as it doesn't augment the
> component
> model with meaningless information.
>
> 3) Along the lines of (1), it would be nice to be explicit about the
> components being annotated with properties in section 2.1.x.
>
>
> I'm afraid most of the Usage Guide is over my head, but in section 2.1, I
> notice an extra # on the schema namespace.  Perhaps they should be
> validated
> more carefully - namely by submitting them to the WSDL test suite ;-).
>
>
>
> Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com -
> http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
> > Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky
> > Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 11:30 AM
> > To: WS-Description WG; public-sws-ig@w3.org; semantic-web@w3.org
> > Subject: SAWSDL Last Call
> >
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > the Semantic Annotations for WSDL Working Group is happy to
> > announce that our specification has progressed to Last Call. The
> > specification, Semantic Annotations for WSDL, is available at
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-sawsdl-20060928/
> >
> > The document is accompanied by a usage guide (intended
> > eventually to be published as a WG Note), available at
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-sawsdl-guide-20060928/
> >
> > We will welcome any comments on our spec, especially with respect to how
> > it may interact with your work, and whether you find it useful, at
> > public-ws-semann-comments@w3.org, a mailing list with a public archive
> > at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-semann-comments/ .
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Jacek Kopecký
> > chair of the SAWSDL WG
> >
> > --
> > Researcher
> > DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
> > University of Innsbruck, Austria
> > Phone: +43 512 5076481
> > Org:   http://www.deri.org/
> > Blog:  http://jacek.cz/blog/
> >
>
>
>
>


-- 
Shift to the left, shift to the right!
Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!

-Ramkumar Menon
A typical Macroprocessor