W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-eds@w3.org > April 2005

2002/ws/desc/wsdl20 wsdl20-primer.xml,1.57,1.58 wsdl20-primer.html,1.38,1.39

From: David Booth via cvs-syncmail <cvsmail@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:46:43 +0000
To: public-ws-desc-eds@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1DNRtz-0005u5-FJ@lionel-hutz.w3.org>

Update of /sources/public/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20
In directory hutz:/tmp/cvs-serv20991

Modified Files:
	wsdl20-primer.xml wsdl20-primer.html 
Log Message:
Finished editing/updating all sections.  Remaining to-do list: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/primer-todo.htm

Index: wsdl20-primer.xml
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/public/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-primer.xml,v
retrieving revision 1.57
retrieving revision 1.58
diff -C2 -d -r1.57 -r1.58
*** wsdl20-primer.xml	18 Apr 2005 07:39:22 -0000	1.57
--- wsdl20-primer.xml	18 Apr 2005 08:46:40 -0000	1.58
***************
*** 2710,2717 ****
  			<div2 id="adv-rdf-mapping">
  				<head>Mapping to RDF and Semantic Web</head>
! 			<p>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@</p></div2>
! 			<!-- **********************************NotesOnURIs***************** --><div2 id="adv-notes-on-uris"><head>Notes on URIs</head><p>This section does not directly contribute to the
! specification, but provides background that may be useful when
! implementing the specification.</p><div3 id="adv-namespaces-and-schema-locations"><head>XML Namespaces and Schema Locations</head><p>It is a common misperception to equate either the  target namespace of an XML Schema or the value of the
  <att>xmlns</att> attribute in XML instances with the location
  of the corresponding schema. Even though namespaces are URIs, and URIs may be locations, and it may be possible to
--- 2710,2751 ----
  			<div2 id="adv-rdf-mapping">
  				<head>Mapping to RDF and Semantic Web</head>
! 			<p>WSDL 2.0 is a language designed primarily with XML syntax. While XML is
! almost universally understood, it has several issues: </p><ulist><item><p><?xm-replace_text {p}?></p></item><item><p>The ability to compose two XML documents into one depends on the languages of those documents. WSDL 2.0 does not permit Web service descriptions 
!         in different targetNamespaces to be merged into a single (physical) XML document. </p></item><item><p>The ability to extend XML languages with other XML languages depends on the
!         languages again. WSDL 2.0 is extremely extensible, but the meaning
!         of every single extension in WSDL must be defined explicitly.  Putting a
!         piece of XMI (XML format for UML) into a WSDL 2.0 document may have
!         different meaning from putting it into an XHTML document.
!         Therefore XML-based extensibility has very high cost if many
!         languages are involved. </p></item><item><p>Similarly, extending another XML language with pieces of WSDL 2.0,
!         while possible, has to be defined for all the possible
!         destinations. Putting a WSDL 2.0 interface element into a UDDI
!         registry may mean a different thing from putting that interface
!         element into an XHTML document.</p></item><item><p>Finally, the meaning of a portion of a WSDL 2.0 document is  not defined by the WSDL 2.0
!         specification.  While an interface element could form a single XML
!         document, it is not a WSDL 2.0 document, so its meaning is largely undefined. </p></item></ulist><p>Applications that require such levels of composability (or
! decomposability) are increasingly being based on RDF @@bibref@@, a graph-based
! knowledge representation language, and Web Ontology Language (OWL) @@bibref@@,
! which can be thought of as an advanced schema language for RDF.  Effectively,
! a WSDL 2.0 document represented in RDF can be more easily extended with arbitrary
! RDF assertions and the WSDL 2.0 information can be more easily associated with
! arbitrary other knowledge.  </p><div3 id="adv-rdf-rep-wsdl"><head>RDF Representation of WSDL 2.0</head><p><emph>WSDL 2.0: Mapping to RDF</emph> @@bibref@@ describes how WSDL 2.0 constructs can be
! expressed in RDF using classes of resources (described with an ontology
! expressed in OWL) and assertions over individual resources.  As RDF represents knowledge using resources and relationships between
! them, we need to turn WSDL 2.0 concepts into this model.  This is done as follows.</p><olist><item><p>First, all components in WSDL 2.0 (like Interfaces, Operations,
!         Bindings, Services, Endpoints etc., including extensions) are
!         turned into resources identified with the appropriate URIs
!         created according to @@Appendix C@@.</p></item><item><p>Further, things are represented as resources:<olist><item><p>Element declarations gathered from XML Schema (or
!                 similarly, other components from other type systems)</p></item><item><p>Message content models</p></item><item><p>Message exchange patterns (the URI identifying the MEP
!                 is the URI of the resource)</p></item><item><p>Operation styles (similarly to MEPs, the URI of an
!                 operation style is the URI of the resource)</p></item></olist></p></item><item><p>All the resources above are given the appropriate types using
!         rdf:type stataments (an interface will belong to the class
!         Interface and an operation within an interface will belong to
!         the class InterfaceOperation, for example).</p></item><item><p>All relationships in WSDL 2.0 (like an Operation belonging to an
!         Interface and having a given operation style) are turned into
!         RDF statements using appropriate properties, such as <code>operation</code>
!         and <code>operationStyle</code>.</p></item></olist></div3></div2>
! 			<!-- **********************************NotesOnURIs***************** --><div2 id="adv-notes-on-uris"><head>Notes on URIs</head><p>This section provides background that may be useful when authoring a WSDL 2.0 document or
! implementing the WSDL 2.0 specification.</p><div3 id="adv-namespaces-and-schema-locations"><head>XML Namespaces and Schema Locations</head><p>It is a common misperception to equate either the  target namespace of an XML Schema or the value of the
  <att>xmlns</att> attribute in XML instances with the location
  of the corresponding schema. Even though namespaces are URIs, and URIs may be locations, and it may be possible to
***************
*** 2724,2729 ****
  <att>import</att> mechanism, which is based on XML
  Schema's term for the similar concept.</p></div3><div3 id="adv-relative-uris"><head>Relative URIs</head><p>Throughout this document there are fully qualified URIs used
! in WSDL and XSD examples. The use of a fully qualified URI
! is simply to illustrate the referencing concepts. The use of
  relative URIs is allowed and warranted in many
  cases. For information on processing relative URIs, see
--- 2758,2763 ----
  <att>import</att> mechanism, which is based on XML
  Schema's term for the similar concept.</p></div3><div3 id="adv-relative-uris"><head>Relative URIs</head><p>Throughout this document there are fully qualified URIs used
! in WSDL 2.0 and XSD examples. In some cases, the use of a fully qualified URI
! is simply to illustrate the referencing concepts. however, the use of
  relative URIs is allowed and warranted in many
  cases. For information on processing relative URIs, see
***************
*** 2731,2735 ****
  up a temporary URI for an entity, for use during development, but not make the URI globally unique
  for all time and have it &quot;mean&quot; that version of the
! entity (schema, WSDL document, etc.).  <emph>Reserved Top Level DNS Names</emph> <bibref ref="RFC2606"/> specifies some URI base names that are reserved for use for this type of behavior. For example, the base
  URI <attval>http://example.org/</attval> can be used to
  construct a temporary URI without any unique association to an entity.
--- 2765,2769 ----
  up a temporary URI for an entity, for use during development, but not make the URI globally unique
  for all time and have it &quot;mean&quot; that version of the
! entity (schema, WSDL 2.0 document, etc.).  <emph>Reserved Top Level DNS Names</emph> <bibref ref="RFC2606"/> specifies some URI base names that are reserved for use for this type of behavior. For example, the base
  URI <attval>http://example.org/</attval> can be used to
  construct a temporary URI without any unique association to an entity.
***************
*** 2739,2743 ****
  different schemas.  As long as the scope of use of these
  URIs does not intersect, then they would be unique
! enough. It is not recommended that <attval>
  http://example.org/</attval> be used as a base for stable,
  fixed entities.</p></div3></div2>
--- 2773,2777 ----
  different schemas.  As long as the scope of use of these
  URIs does not intersect, then they would be unique
! enough. However, it is not recommended that <attval>
  http://example.org/</attval> be used as a base for stable,
  fixed entities.</p></div3></div2>

Index: wsdl20-primer.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/public/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-primer.html,v
retrieving revision 1.38
retrieving revision 1.39
diff -C2 -d -r1.38 -r1.39
*** wsdl20-primer.html	18 Apr 2005 07:39:22 -0000	1.38
--- wsdl20-primer.html	18 Apr 2005 08:46:40 -0000	1.39
***************
*** 376,379 ****
--- 376,381 ----
  &#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;7.11 <a href="#adv-rdf-mapping">Mapping to
  RDF and Semantic Web</a><br />
+ &#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;7.11.1 <a
+ href="#adv-rdf-rep-wsdl">RDF Representation of WSDL 2.0</a><br />
  &#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;7.12 <a href="#adv-notes-on-uris">Notes on
  URIs</a><br />
***************
*** 5742,5748 ****
  to RDF and Semantic Web</h3>
  
! <p>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
! @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
! @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@</p>
  </div>
  
--- 5744,5855 ----
  to RDF and Semantic Web</h3>
  
! <p>WSDL 2.0 is a language designed primarily with XML syntax. While
! XML is almost universally understood, it has several issues:</p>
! 
! <ul>
! <li>
! <p>The ability to compose two XML documents into one depends on the
! languages of those documents. WSDL 2.0 does not permit Web service
! descriptions in different targetNamespaces to be merged into a
! single (physical) XML document.</p>
! </li>
! 
! <li>
! <p>The ability to extend XML languages with other XML languages
! depends on the languages again. WSDL 2.0 is extremely extensible,
! but the meaning of every single extension in WSDL must be defined
! explicitly. Putting a piece of XMI (XML format for UML) into a WSDL
! 2.0 document may have different meaning from putting it into an
! XHTML document. Therefore XML-based extensibility has very high
! cost if many languages are involved.</p>
! </li>
! 
! <li>
! <p>Similarly, extending another XML language with pieces of WSDL
! 2.0, while possible, has to be defined for all the possible
! destinations. Putting a WSDL 2.0 interface element into a UDDI
! registry may mean a different thing from putting that interface
! element into an XHTML document.</p>
! </li>
! 
! <li>
! <p>Finally, the meaning of a portion of a WSDL 2.0 document is not
! defined by the WSDL 2.0 specification. While an interface element
! could form a single XML document, it is not a WSDL 2.0 document, so
! its meaning is largely undefined.</p>
! </li>
! </ul>
! 
! <p>Applications that require such levels of composability (or
! decomposability) are increasingly being based on RDF @@bibref@@, a
! graph-based knowledge representation language, and Web Ontology
! Language (OWL) @@bibref@@, which can be thought of as an advanced
! schema language for RDF. Effectively, a WSDL 2.0 document
! represented in RDF can be more easily extended with arbitrary RDF
! assertions and the WSDL 2.0 information can be more easily
! associated with arbitrary other knowledge.</p>
! 
! <div class="div3">
! <h4><a id="adv-rdf-rep-wsdl" name="adv-rdf-rep-wsdl"></a>7.11.1 RDF
! Representation of WSDL 2.0</h4>
! 
! <p><em>WSDL 2.0: Mapping to RDF</em> @@bibref@@ describes how WSDL
! 2.0 constructs can be expressed in RDF using classes of resources
! (described with an ontology expressed in OWL) and assertions over
! individual resources. As RDF represents knowledge using resources
! and relationships between them, we need to turn WSDL 2.0 concepts
! into this model. This is done as follows.</p>
! 
! <ol>
! <li>
! <p>First, all components in WSDL 2.0 (like Interfaces, Operations,
! Bindings, Services, Endpoints etc., including extensions) are
! turned into resources identified with the appropriate URIs created
! according to @@Appendix C@@.</p>
! </li>
! 
! <li>
! <p>Further, things are represented as resources:</p>
! 
! <ol>
! <li>
! <p>Element declarations gathered from XML Schema (or similarly,
! other components from other type systems)</p>
! </li>
! 
! <li>
! <p>Message content models</p>
! </li>
! 
! <li>
! <p>Message exchange patterns (the URI identifying the MEP is the
! URI of the resource)</p>
! </li>
! 
! <li>
! <p>Operation styles (similarly to MEPs, the URI of an operation
! style is the URI of the resource)</p>
! </li>
! </ol>
! 
! <br />
! <br />
! </li>
! 
! <li>
! <p>All the resources above are given the appropriate types using
! rdf:type stataments (an interface will belong to the class
! Interface and an operation within an interface will belong to the
! class InterfaceOperation, for example).</p>
! </li>
! 
! <li>
! <p>All relationships in WSDL 2.0 (like an Operation belonging to an
! Interface and having a given operation style) are turned into RDF
! statements using appropriate properties, such as
! <code>operation</code> and <code>operationStyle</code>.</p>
! </li>
! </ol>
! </div>
  </div>
  
***************
*** 5751,5756 ****
  Notes on URIs</h3>
  
! <p>This section does not directly contribute to the specification,
! but provides background that may be useful when implementing the
  specification.</p>
  
--- 5858,5863 ----
  Notes on URIs</h3>
  
! <p>This section provides background that may be useful when
! authoring a WSDL 2.0 document or implementing the WSDL 2.0
  specification.</p>
  
***************
*** 5779,5786 ****
  
  <p>Throughout this document there are fully qualified URIs used in
! WSDL and XSD examples. The use of a fully qualified URI is simply
! to illustrate the referencing concepts. The use of relative URIs is
! allowed and warranted in many cases. For information on processing
! relative URIs, see <a
  href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt">RFC2396</a>.</p>
  </div>
--- 5886,5893 ----
  
  <p>Throughout this document there are fully qualified URIs used in
! WSDL 2.0 and XSD examples. In some cases, the use of a fully
! qualified URI is simply to illustrate the referencing concepts.
! however, the use of relative URIs is allowed and warranted in many
! cases. For information on processing relative URIs, see <a
  href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt">RFC2396</a>.</p>
  </div>
***************
*** 5800,5805 ****
  for an entity, for use during development, but not make the URI
  globally unique for all time and have it "mean" that version of the
! entity (schema, WSDL document, etc.). <em>Reserved Top Level DNS
! Names</em> [<cite><a href="#RFC2606">IETF RFC 2606</a></cite>]
  specifies some URI base names that are reserved for use for this
  type of behavior. For example, the base URI "http://example.org/"
--- 5907,5912 ----
  for an entity, for use during development, but not make the URI
  globally unique for all time and have it "mean" that version of the
! entity (schema, WSDL 2.0 document, etc.). <em>Reserved Top Level
! DNS Names</em> [<cite><a href="#RFC2606">IETF RFC 2606</a></cite>]
  specifies some URI base names that are reserved for use for this
  type of behavior. For example, the base URI "http://example.org/"
***************
*** 5809,5815 ****
  http://example.org/userSchema" for two completely different
  schemas. As long as the scope of use of these URIs does not
! intersect, then they would be unique enough. It is not recommended
! that " http://example.org/" be used as a base for stable, fixed
! entities.</p>
  </div>
  </div>
--- 5916,5922 ----
  http://example.org/userSchema" for two completely different
  schemas. As long as the scope of use of these URIs does not
! intersect, then they would be unique enough. However, it is not
! recommended that " http://example.org/" be used as a base for
! stable, fixed entities.</p>
  </div>
  </div>
Received on Monday, 18 April 2005 08:46:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:31:34 UTC