W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2007

RE: operation safety as semantic annotation?

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:35:59 -0500
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jonathan@wso2.com>
Cc: "'Jacek Kopecky'" <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>, "'WS-Description WG'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF2341F5C5.5283CC20-ON85257275.004EE9F5-85257275.005032CB@ca.ibm.com>

The {safety} property was discussed at length by the working group and we 
implemented its decision. I see no reason to reopen it now. We should be 
focusing on getting to PR.

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca

"Jonathan Marsh" <jonathan@wso2.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
01/31/2007 04:06 PM

"'Jacek Kopecky'" <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>, "'WS-Description WG'" 

RE: operation safety as semantic annotation?

AIUI, adding such an attribute would result in a {model reference} 
being added to the WSDL, along with the {safety} attribute.  Are you OK 
having duplicate information in the component model?

Currently, the HTTP binding requires the wsdlx:safe extension be supported
for interoperability.  Will it be clear that
tion" is still required to be supported, but that the whole sawsdl
extension, including any {model reference} properties, need not be?

Right now we declare in the interchange format which extensions are
supported, by URI (usually the namespace URI).  We would be unable to use
the SAWSDL namespace URI to indicate this "safe sawsdl profile" extension 
engaged - I guess we would continue to use the wsdlx namespace for this

It all seems kind of messy.  My ideal would be to simply remove the
wsdlx:safe and the {safety} attribute from WSDL and rely wholly on SAWSDL
for this functionality.  The interaction between {safety} and the HTTP
method selection is artificial IMO.  If one's intention is to use GET, 
marking something as safe is no harder, and in fact one level more 
and therefore tricky, than marking the whttp:method as GET. 

Anyway, this will be issue CR147.

Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 7:04 AM
> To: WS-Description WG
> Subject: RFC: operation safety as semantic annotation?
> Dear all,
> as you may know, the specification for Semantic Annotations for WSDL and
> XML Schema [1] (SAWSDL) moving to CR. In our institute (my W3C hats are
> off), we work on Semantic Web Services, and we plan to use SAWSDL as the
> glue between our semantic description language and WSDL.
> For my work, I will need to know the semantic description, i.e. what the
> various service operations and data mean and do. One piece that I need
> is operation safety. Currently, that is realized in WSDL as an extension
> attribute, wsdlx:safe="boolean", with the default being false.
> Operation safety is, at least to me, a clear semantic annotation. It
> says nothing about the structure of the interface, instead it indicates
> what the operation does (or rather, what it doesn't do - any side
> effects or additional obligations in Web Architecture speak).
> I would propose that we change the syntax from wsdlx:safe="true"  to
> sawsdl:modelReference="http://www.w3.org/2006/01/wsdl-
> extensions#SafeInteraction"
> I know it's much longer, but please bear with me. 8-)
> The WSDL Interface Operation {safety} property can stay as it is, only
> its XML representation would change to "the IRI for SafeInteraction (as
> above) will be included among the IRIs that are the value of
> sawsdl:modelReference". The URI above is currently used in the RDF
> mapping of WSDL to represent the safety property.
> At worst, the people hand-writing and reading WSDL would have their
> lives just a bit harder. At best, this would blend right in with the
> plethora of other semantic annotations. Certainly, from my own point of
> view, having safety as a semantic annotation as opposed to an extension
> attribute would make my life just a bit easier.
> Thanks for your consideration,
> Jacek
> [1] http://w3.org/tr/sawsdl
Received on Thursday, 1 February 2007 14:36:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:55:03 UTC