W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sws-ig@w3.org > March 2006

RE: Semantics of WSDL vs. semantics of service

From: Battle, Steven <steve.battle@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:08:50 -0000
Message-ID: <DE62D3D0BDEF184FBB5089C7D387C3748BE1C5@sdcexc04.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Carine Bournez" <carine@w3.org>, <public-sws-ig@w3.org>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-sws-ig-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-sws-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Carine Bournez
> Sent: 15 March 2006 16:44
> To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Semantics of WSDL vs. semantics of service
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 11:36:05AM -0500, Shi, Xuan wrote:
> > 
> > Jacek,
> > 
> > Thanks for your explanation. If you agree that semantic annotations 
> > have no direct relation with WSDL elements, then why don't 
> you create 
> > a separated and independent document to describe the 
> *meaning* of your 
> > services? That's
> 
> Clarification about semantic annotation for wsdl:
> The *meaning* is actually in a separate document (or several 
> ones). The annotation in the WSDL is supposed to *point* to 
> *external information*.
>

Has this been decided already? The charter says, "The Semantic
Annotations for WSDL Working Group is chartered to define one or more
properties of WSDL 2.0 components to point to additional semantics to
concepts represented by those components, e.g. interface, operation,
endpoint."

Nothing in the charter restricts this additional semantics being
embedded in the WSDL document itself. Indeed if it is, the likelihood is
that tools will simply ignore the additional semantic components. 

Steve :)
Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2006 17:09:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:32:52 UTC