- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:14:06 -0500
- To: "Shi, Xuan" <xshi@GEO.WVU.edu>
- Cc: "'''public-sws-ig@w3c.org ' ' '" <public-sws-ig@w3c.org>, "'Jacek Kopecky '" <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
On Mar 15, 2006, at 11:36 AM, Shi, Xuan wrote: > Jacek, > > Thanks for your explanation. If you agree that semantic annotations > have no > direct relation with WSDL elements, Whatever this is, I don't agree. I imagine there will be semantic annotations that have direct relations with what certain WSDL elements describe (however briefly). > then why don't you create a separated > and independent document Do that if you like. Or put it in the WSDL. Why not? > to describe the *meaning* of your services? Well I don't want (necessarily) describe THE *meaning*, I want to describe my service in a variety of convenient ways. I think it will often be more convenient to have a richer WSDL document. Note that OWL-S does the "annotative" approach (I.e., owl-s documents point to wsdl documents with no modifictation of the wsdl). Which is fine. Not the only way to go, but fine. However, it does NOT buy you any magical separation that resolves your "problem". These are notational, not substantive, differences. > That's > just my suggestion which was proposed as the so-called OSRR approach > for > SWS. I also demonstrated already that such approach can be deployed by > either SOAP or REST services without question. Yeah, but in that debate you totally failed either to understand or respond to the fact that WSDL (e.g., the wsdl describing the sparql protocol) can do the latter "without question". So, you have no advantages whatsoever (technically). > Service semantics have no relation with WSDL- Pif and fle. > which can be deprecated as I > demonstrated You have asserted this. Ad nauseum. But sheer assertion does not establish your case. [snipped more of the same] Even more of the same won't help, btw. Actually responding to, or even acknowledging, the rather devastating critiques would at least allow moving the conversation forward. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2006 22:14:13 UTC