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

Re: SAWSDL Last Call

From: Ramkumar Menon <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:23:10 -0700
Message-ID: <22bb8a4e0703121523j20e4f578nbe537f7facbc6ff7@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Cc: public-ws-semann@w3.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Jacek/All,

Although late in the game, I realize that the following issue had no closure
till date.
Just ensuring that its tracked.


>> ---- Your response to my email on 23rd October, 06. -----
>> The WSDL WG might be interested in creating an ontology for modeling
>> MEPs and putting MEP descriptions at the MEP IRIs (plus some
>> WebArch-friendly magic). The WSDL RDF mapping ontology actually does
>> contain a primitive model of MEPs: it only says that an MEP follows
>> specific faulting rules, and what message labels it defines. There's no
>> ordering among message labels in the model, but it can be added.
>> Actually, that would be trivial, if we restrict ourselves to something
>> like "labelA precedes labelB". Then there's the optionality of messages,
>> also fairly trivial. I can take a stab at this, maybe.

rgds,
Ram

On 10/23/06, Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Ramkumar,
>
> regarding the capturing of user-defined MEP semantics using SAWSDL,
> I'd say that it would be more in the spirit of the SemWeb to describe
> the semantics somewhere at the MEP IRI, not in SAWSDL. In other words,
> the IRI should point to something that will (re)direct the requestor (in
> some fashion) to a description of the MEP. SAWSDL is about annotating
> WSDL instances, not about describing WSDL or its extensions (like the
> user-defined MEPs or e.g. new bindings).
>
> The WSDL WG might be interested in creating an ontology for modeling
> MEPs and putting MEP descriptions at the MEP IRIs (plus some
> WebArch-friendly magic). The WSDL RDF mapping ontology actually does
> contain a primitive model of MEPs: it only says that an MEP follows
> specific faulting rules, and what message labels it defines. There's no
> ordering among message labels in the model, but it can be added.
> Actually, that would be trivial, if we restrict ourselves to something
> like "labelA precedes labelB". Then there's the optionality of messages,
> also fairly trivial. I can take a stab at this, maybe.
>
> I'll talk to some colleagues about whether this could be useful for
> semantic web services tooling.
>
> I think we don't quite need to state that the MEP IRI may dereference to
> a description of the MEP, but such a note wouldn't do any harm, either.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Jacek
>
> On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 19:32 -0700, Ramkumar Menon wrote:
> > 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 Kopeck√Ĺ
> >         > 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
>
>


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

-Ramkumar Menon
A typical Macroprocessor
Received on Monday, 12 March 2007 22:23:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:46 GMT