RE: Semantics of WSDL vs. semantics of service

Hi Steve,

while the charter does not directly support embedded semantic
annotations, I think the issue is still open and up for discussion by
the WG.

I for one see some use cases where embedding the annotations would be
useful, and I can see at least two ways of embedding them: put a whole
semantic description document somewhere in the WSDL document (like we
put schemas in the <types> section) and then the annotations will point
into the document; or put the full annotations themselves on the spot,
instead of referring to them.

While the second option can be seen as out of scope as defined in the
charter, at least the first option should be available to us. 8-)

Hope it helps,

Jacek

On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 17:08 +0000, Battle, Steven wrote:
>  
> 
> > -----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 Monday, 20 March 2006 10:39:19 UTC