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

2002/ws/desc/wsdl20 wsdl20.rdf,1.1,1.2 wsdl20-rdf.html,1.1,1.2

From: Jacek Kopecky via cvs-syncmail <cvsmail@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 08:56:41 +0000
To: public-ws-desc-eds@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1EPytF-0004Ek-De@lionel-hutz.w3.org>

Update of /sources/public/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20
In directory hutz:/tmp/cvs-serv16191

Modified Files:
	wsdl20.rdf wsdl20-rdf.html 
Log Message:
added Description component, added both binding descriptions, other minor tweaks

Index: wsdl20.rdf
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/public/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.rdf,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -C2 -d -r1.1 -r1.2
*** wsdl20.rdf	7 Oct 2005 15:22:15 -0000	1.1
--- wsdl20.rdf	13 Oct 2005 08:56:38 -0000	1.2
***************
*** 38,54 ****
  <!-- todo modularize into many more namespaces -->
  
- <!-- todo add all easily modelable constraints (or remove them altogether)
- BJP: We coudl have two documents...one pure RDFS with just the subclass and
- subproperty trees adn then an owl document with the remaining axioms that
- imports the first document
- JK: good idea, can be postponed for a moment but I like it
- -->
- 
  <!-- todo maybe rename properties to verbs and adjectives? -->
  
- <!-- BJP: It would be better to have an xml:base. I converted allthe identifiers to the equivalent relative uris.
- 
- BTW. The new pretty printer in swoop does a much better job. I'll add the standard entities tomorrow...I'm beat right now :) -->
- 
  <owl:Ontology rdf:about="">
  </owl:Ontology>
--- 38,43 ----
***************
*** 70,73 ****
--- 59,65 ----
  </owl:Class>
  
+ <owl:Class rdf:about="#Description">
+ </owl:Class>
+ 
  <owl:Class rdf:about="#Endpoint">
    <rdfs:subClassOf>
***************
*** 151,155 ****
  <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#binding">
    <rdfs:range  rdf:resource="#Binding"/>
!   <rdfs:comment>To be used for pointing to a Binding, for example from Endpoint</rdfs:comment>
  </owl:ObjectProperty>
  
--- 143,147 ----
  <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#binding">
    <rdfs:range  rdf:resource="#Binding"/>
!   <rdfs:comment>To be used for pointing to a Binding, for example from Description or Endpoint</rdfs:comment>
  </owl:ObjectProperty>
  
***************
*** 276,280 ****
  </owl:ObjectProperty>
  
- <!-- todo - the naming of this and preceding may be confusing -->
  <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#property">
    <rdfs:range  rdf:resource="#Property"/>
--- 268,271 ----
***************
*** 291,294 ****
--- 282,289 ----
  </owl:ObjectProperty>
  
+ <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#service">
+   <rdfs:range  rdf:resource="#Service"/>
+ </owl:ObjectProperty>
+ 
  <owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:about="#documentation">
    <rdfs:range  rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral"/>
***************
*** 429,433 ****
    <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#InterfaceOperation"/>
    <rdfs:range  rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl/rpc#signatureType"/>
!   <rdfs:comment>todo - can I use the above URI for the datatype of this property?</rdfs:comment>
  </owl:DatatypeProperty>
  
--- 424,428 ----
    <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#InterfaceOperation"/>
    <rdfs:range  rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl/rpc#signatureType"/>
!   <rdfs:comment>todo - can we use the above URI for the datatype of this property?</rdfs:comment>
  </owl:DatatypeProperty>
  
***************
*** 442,446 ****
  
  
! <!-- part 2: bindings - todo split out -->
  
  <!-- SOAP binding -->
--- 437,441 ----
  
  
! <!-- part 2: bindings -->
  
  <!-- SOAP binding -->
***************
*** 486,489 ****
--- 481,485 ----
    <rdfs:comment>
      indicates a fault subcode of a binding fault; there can be multiple subcodes
+     todo - the list of subcodes is ordered in SOAP 1.2
    </rdfs:comment>
    <rdfs:range  rdf:resource="#QName"/>
***************
*** 519,523 ****
    <rdfs:comment>
      indicates the SOAP action this binding operation uses
-     todo - change "operation" to "message reference" when that change happens to the spec
    </rdfs:comment>
  </owl:ObjectProperty>
--- 515,518 ----
***************
*** 671,675 ****
  </owl:DatatypeProperty>
  
! <owl:Class rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl/http#WithCookies">
    <rdfs:comment>WSDL 2 HTTP binding with cookies</rdfs:comment>
    <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl/http"/>
--- 666,670 ----
  </owl:DatatypeProperty>
  
! <owl:Class rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl/http#HTTPBindingWithCookies">
    <rdfs:comment>WSDL 2 HTTP binding with cookies</rdfs:comment>
    <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl/http"/>

Index: wsdl20-rdf.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/public/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-rdf.html,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -C2 -d -r1.1 -r1.2
*** wsdl20-rdf.html	7 Oct 2005 15:22:15 -0000	1.1
--- wsdl20-rdf.html	13 Oct 2005 08:56:38 -0000	1.2
***************
*** 61,71 ****
  <div class="toc">
  
- <!-- 
- todo - numbering and anchors on headings, then copy them here
- 
- todo write a paper about our experiences with mapping WSDL to RDF: www2006? cswws?
- -->
- 
- 
  <h2><a id="contents">Table of Contents</a></h2>
  
--- 61,64 ----
***************
*** 75,81 ****
  2. <a href="#ontology">WSDL Ontology</a><br />
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2.1 <a href="#core">Core WSDL Components</a><br />
! &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2.1.1 <a href="#interface">Interface classes</a><br />
! &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2.1.2 <a href="#binding">Binding classes</a><br />
! &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2.1.3 <a href="#service">Service classes</a><br />
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2.2 <a href="#extensions">Handling Features, Properties and Generic Extensions</a><br />
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2.2.1 <a href="#featprops">Features and properties</a><br />
--- 68,75 ----
  2. <a href="#ontology">WSDL Ontology</a><br />
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2.1 <a href="#core">Core WSDL Components</a><br />
! &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2.1.1 <a href="#description">Description component</a><br />
! &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2.1.2 <a href="#interface">Interface classes</a><br />
! &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2.1.3 <a href="#binding">Binding classes</a><br />
! &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2.1.4 <a href="#service">Service classes</a><br />
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2.2 <a href="#extensions">Handling Features, Properties and Generic Extensions</a><br />
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2.2.1 <a href="#featprops">Features and properties</a><br />
***************
*** 188,191 ****
--- 182,188 ----
  usually has the same name etc. -->
  
+ <!-- todo summarize the URIs we use here, especially the potentially
+ contentious ones, both those we reuse and those we invent -->
+ 
  <!-- todo sprinkle the contents of this section with examples, or add a big
  example somewhere -->
***************
*** 197,206 ****
  
  <p>All the main components of WSDL are represented as classes in the WSDL
! ontology: <code>Interface</code>, <code>Binding</code> and
! <code>Service</code>, as described in the following subsections. This means
! that every interface, binding and service described by WSDL will be mapped to
! a single instance in the RDF representation. There is no class for the
! top-level Description component, as it serves only as the mandatory XML root
! element for documents containing WSDL descriptions.</p>
  
  <p>All the components in WSDL can contain documentation. Such documentation
--- 194,202 ----
  
  <p>All the main components of WSDL are represented as classes in the WSDL
! ontology: <code>Description</code>, <code>Interface</code>,
! <code>Binding</code> and <code>Service</code>, as described in the following
! subsections. This means that every interface, binding and service described
! by WSDL will be mapped to a single instance in the RDF representation, linked
! from the instance mapped from the top-level description component.</p>
  
  <p>All the components in WSDL can contain documentation. Such documentation
***************
*** 212,216 ****
  using the property <code>documentation</code>.</p>
  
! <h4 id="interface">2.1.1 Interface classes</h4>
  
  <p>All WSDL interfaces are represented in RDF as instances of the
--- 208,231 ----
  using the property <code>documentation</code>.</p>
  
! <h4 id="description">2.1.1 Description class</h4>
! 
! <p>The top-level WSDL component &mdash; description &mdash; is mapped to a
! single instance of the class <code>Description</code>, which uses the
! properties <code>interface</code>, <code>binding</code>, <code>service</code>,
! <code>typeDefinition</code> and <code>elementDeclaration</code> to point to its
! contents, i.e. all the interfaces, bindings, services, type definitions and
! element declarations present (or included or imported) in this description.</p>
! 
! <p>Note that a mapping of a single WSDL document (together with any imports or
! includes) will always result in a single instance of the
! <code>Description</code> class. However, there can be multiple individuals of
! the class <code>Description</code> in a knowledge base that contains the
! information from multiple WSDL documents. The core WSDL specification does not
! consider the case of combining multiple independent WSDL documents and that it
! doesn't mandate that independent documents describe consistently components
! with the same name. This is, however, an assumption when combining multiple
! WSDL documents in the RDF representation.</p>
! 
! <h4 id="interface">2.1.2 Interface classes</h4>
  
  <p>All WSDL interfaces are represented in RDF as instances of the
***************
*** 264,268 ****
  <code>interfaceFault</code>.</p>
  
! <h4 id="binding">2.1.2 Binding classes</h4>
  
  <p>WSDL bindings are represented in RDF as instances of the class
--- 279,283 ----
  <code>interfaceFault</code>.</p>
  
! <h4 id="binding">2.1.3 Binding classes</h4>
  
  <p>WSDL bindings are represented in RDF as instances of the class
***************
*** 301,305 ****
  and <a href="#httpbinding">2.7</a>.</p>
  
! <h4 id="service">2.1.3 Service classes</h4>
  
  <p>WSDL services are represented in RDF as instances of the class
--- 316,320 ----
  and <a href="#httpbinding">2.7</a>.</p>
  
! <h4 id="service">2.1.4 Service classes</h4>
  
  <p>WSDL services are represented in RDF as instances of the class
***************
*** 464,472 ****
  <h3 id="soapbinding">2.6 SOAP Binding</h3>
  
! <p>todo</p>
  
  <h3 id="httpbinding">2.7 HTTP Binding</h3>
  
! <p>todo</p>
  
  <h2 id="modelingdiffs">3. Differences from the WSDL Component Model</h2>
--- 479,561 ----
  <h3 id="soapbinding">2.6 SOAP Binding</h3>
  
! <p>WSDL bindings that bind to SOAP are identified (using the property
! <code>rdf:type</code>) as instances of the class
! <code>http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl/soap</code>. Every such binding must
! indicate the SOAP version that it uses, this is done with the property
! <code>version</code> (with a value "1.2", for example, meaning SOAP version
! 1.2). Every binding also must specify with the property <code>protocol</code>
! the underlying protocol that is uses.</p>
! 
! <!-- todo defaults are not in component model yet, not described in the text
! yet either -->
! 
! <p>Each SOAP binding operation must specify the SOAP message exchange pattern
! it uses &mdash; the appropriate URI from the SOAP specification is pointed to
! using the property <code>soapMEP</code>. The ontology also introduces the
! class <code>SOAPMessageExchangePattern</code> that contains all the SOAP
! MEPs.</p>
! 
! <p>SOAP binding operations can also specify the value of the action parameter
! (known as SOAP action) for the <!-- todo? --> initial message, using the
! property <code>action</code>.</p>
! 
! <p>Binding faults in the SOAP binding can specify two properties &mdash;
! fault code and fault subcodes. Both fault code and subcodes are QNames, and
! they are pointed to using the properties <code>faultCode</code> and
! <code>faultSubcode</code>. The latter is repeated for each subcode that the
! binding fault specifies.</p>
! 
! <p>At any level within a SOAP binding, components can declare the use of a
! SOAP module. Required modules are pointed to using the property
! <code>requiresSOAPModule</code> and optional modules are pointed to using the
! property <code>offersSOAPModule</code> &mdash; both of these properties point
! directly from the parent component to the SOAP module, as identified by its
! URI (parameter {ref} in the SOAP Modules component (todo ref)).</p>
! 
! <p>Message references and faults in SOAP bindings can further declare that
! they include specific SOAP headers. To do this, the property
! <code>header</code> can point to an instance of the class
! <code>SOAPHeader</code>, which then uses the property
! <code>elementDeclaration</code> to specify the exact element that represents
! the header. Instances of <code>SOAPHeader</code> can also belong to the class
! <code>MustUnderstandSOAPHeader</code>, which means that this SOAP header will
! be marked as mandatory (mustUnderstand="true") in the message.</p>
! 
! <p>Apart from these SOAP-binding-specific properties, the SOAP binding reuses
! underlying protocol properties, for example some HTTP binding properties when
! the underlying protocol is HTTP. The following section describes the HTTP
! binding properties.</p>
  
  <h3 id="httpbinding">2.7 HTTP Binding</h3>
  
! <p>WSDL bindings that bind to HTTP are identified as instances of the class
! <code>http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl/http</code>. The HTTP bindings that make
! use of HTTP cookies are further identified as instances of the class
! <code>HTTPBindingWithCookies</code>. Every HTTP binding must specify the HTTP
! version in use, which is done with the property <code>version</code> (in a
! different namespace from the property <code>version</code> in the SOAP
! binding), for example HTTP/1.1 is specified with the value "1.1".</p>
! 
! <p>HTTP binding operations can specify a number of HTTP parameters:
! operation-specific location, HTTP method, input and output and fault
! serialization, and query parameter separator. These parameters are
! represented in RDF with the properties <code>location</code>,
! <code>method</code>, <code>inputSerialization</code>,
! <code>outputSerialization</code>, <code>faultSerialization</code> and
! <code>queryParameterSeparator</code>. The values of all these properties are
! literals, same as in the XML syntax of WSDL.</p>
! 
! <p>Message references and faults in an HTTP binding can specify the use of
! extra HTTP headers by pointing to a QName with the property
! <code>header</code>. Message references and fault references in HTTP binding
! operations can also specify the transfer coding using the property
! <code>transferCoding</code> with a literal string value, as in the XML
! representation. Finally, faults can further specify the HTTP status code they
! will be accompanies with, using the property <code>errorCode</code>.</p>
! 
! <p>HTTP bindings can also specify access authentication parameters, in
! particular authentication type and realm. These parameters are reflected with
! the properties <code>authenticationType</code> and
! <code>authenticationRealm</code> with string values.</p>
  
  <h2 id="modelingdiffs">3. Differences from the WSDL Component Model</h2>
***************
*** 497,506 ****
  property, albeit unknown.</p>
  
! <p>RDF, RDFS, or OWL documents using the ontology presented in this document may describe component 
! models which are incomplete, or illegal, or contain extentions (new 
! components, etc.). They may contain multiple unrelated 
! Descriptions, that is, they may be aggregations of many unrelated WSDL 
! documents. In general, Semantic Web based descriptions of Web services 
! using the WSDL conceptual framework tend to be looser than what the 
  WSDL spec prescribes.</p>
  
--- 586,595 ----
  property, albeit unknown.</p>
  
! <p>RDF, RDFS, or OWL documents using the ontology presented in this document
! may describe component models which are incomplete, or illegal, or contain
! extentions (new components, etc.). They may contain multiple unrelated
! Descriptions, that is, they may be aggregations of many unrelated WSDL
! documents. In general, Semantic Web based descriptions of Web services using
! the WSDL conceptual framework tend to be looser than what the 
  WSDL spec prescribes.</p>
  
***************
*** 562,572 ****
  <h3 id="diff-doc">3.2 Documents, imports and includes</h3>
  
! <p>The RDF representation of WSDL does not have the notion of a top-level
! Description component containing a logical group of WSDL components. Instead,
! when represented in RDF, components can be viewed as free-floating pieces of
! description, which should be easily combinable with other information about
! related resources. Strictly speaking, just like interfaces
! don't need to belong to any Description, interface operations don't actually
! need to belong to any interface in the RDF representation.</p>
  
  <p>In the XML syntax for WSDL, documents can be included and imported,
--- 651,660 ----
  <h3 id="diff-doc">3.2 Documents, imports and includes</h3>
  
! <p>While the RDF representation of WSDL contains the Description component
! representing a logical group of WSDL components, these components can
! also be viewed as free-floating pieces of description, which should be easily
! combinable with other information about related resources. Strictly speaking,
! interfaces don't need to belong to any Description, and interface operations
! don't actually need to belong to any interface in the RDF representation.</p>
  
  <p>In the XML syntax for WSDL, documents can be included and imported,
***************
*** 659,675 ****
  &lt;!-- todo modularize into many more namespaces --&gt;
  
- &lt;!-- todo add all easily modelable constraints (or remove them altogether)
- BJP: We coudl have two documents...one pure RDFS with just the subclass and
- subproperty trees adn then an owl document with the remaining axioms that
- imports the first document
- JK: good idea, can be postponed for a moment but I like it
- --&gt;
- 
  &lt;!-- todo maybe rename properties to verbs and adjectives? --&gt;
  
- &lt;!-- BJP: It would be better to have an xml:base. I converted allthe identifiers to the equivalent relative uris.
- 
- BTW. The new pretty printer in swoop does a much better job. I'll add the standard entities tomorrow...I'm beat right now :) --&gt;
- 
  &lt;owl:Ontology rdf:about=""&gt;
  &lt;/owl:Ontology&gt;
--- 747,752 ----
***************
*** 691,694 ****
--- 768,774 ----
  &lt;/owl:Class&gt;
  
+ &lt;owl:Class rdf:about="#Description"&gt;
+ &lt;/owl:Class&gt;
+ 
  &lt;owl:Class rdf:about="#Endpoint"&gt;
    &lt;rdfs:subClassOf&gt;
***************
*** 772,776 ****
  &lt;owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#binding"&gt;
    &lt;rdfs:range  rdf:resource="#Binding"/&gt;
!   &lt;rdfs:comment&gt;To be used for pointing to a Binding, for example from Endpoint&lt;/rdfs:comment&gt;
  &lt;/owl:ObjectProperty&gt;
  
--- 852,856 ----
  &lt;owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#binding"&gt;
    &lt;rdfs:range  rdf:resource="#Binding"/&gt;
!   &lt;rdfs:comment&gt;To be used for pointing to a Binding, for example from Description or Endpoint&lt;/rdfs:comment&gt;
  &lt;/owl:ObjectProperty&gt;
  
***************
*** 897,901 ****
  &lt;/owl:ObjectProperty&gt;
  
- &lt;!-- todo - the naming of this and preceding may be confusing --&gt;
  &lt;owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#property"&gt;
    &lt;rdfs:range  rdf:resource="#Property"/&gt;
--- 977,980 ----
***************
*** 910,914 ****
    &lt;rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#PropertyValue"/&gt;
    &lt;rdfs:range  rdf:resource="#QName"/&gt;
! &lt;/owl:DatatypeProperty&gt;
  
  &lt;owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:about="#documentation"&gt;
--- 989,997 ----
    &lt;rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#PropertyValue"/&gt;
    &lt;rdfs:range  rdf:resource="#QName"/&gt;
! &lt;/owl:ObjectProperty&gt;
! 
! &lt;owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#service"&gt;
!   &lt;rdfs:range  rdf:resource="#Service"/&gt;
! &lt;/owl:ObjectProperty&gt;
  
  &lt;owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:about="#documentation"&gt;
***************
*** 1050,1054 ****
    &lt;rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#InterfaceOperation"/&gt;
    &lt;rdfs:range  rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl/rpc#signatureType"/&gt;
!   &lt;rdfs:comment&gt;todo - can I use the above URI for the datatype of this property?&lt;/rdfs:comment&gt;
  &lt;/owl:DatatypeProperty&gt;
  
--- 1133,1137 ----
    &lt;rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#InterfaceOperation"/&gt;
    &lt;rdfs:range  rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl/rpc#signatureType"/&gt;
!   &lt;rdfs:comment&gt;todo - can we use the above URI for the datatype of this property?&lt;/rdfs:comment&gt;
  &lt;/owl:DatatypeProperty&gt;
  
***************
*** 1063,1067 ****
  
  
! &lt;!-- part 2: bindings - todo split out --&gt;
  
  &lt;!-- SOAP binding --&gt;
--- 1146,1150 ----
  
  
! &lt;!-- part 2: bindings --&gt;
  
  &lt;!-- SOAP binding --&gt;
***************
*** 1140,1144 ****
    &lt;rdfs:comment&gt;
      indicates the SOAP action this binding operation uses
-     todo - change "operation" to "message reference" when that change happens to the spec
    &lt;/rdfs:comment&gt;
  &lt;/owl:ObjectProperty&gt;
--- 1223,1226 ----
***************
*** 1292,1296 ****
  &lt;/owl:DatatypeProperty&gt;
  
! &lt;owl:Class rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl/http#WithCookies"&gt;
    &lt;rdfs:comment&gt;WSDL 2 HTTP binding with cookies&lt;/rdfs:comment&gt;
    &lt;rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl/http"/&gt;
--- 1374,1378 ----
  &lt;/owl:DatatypeProperty&gt;
  
! &lt;owl:Class rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl/http#HTTPBindingWithCookies"&gt;
    &lt;rdfs:comment&gt;WSDL 2 HTTP binding with cookies&lt;/rdfs:comment&gt;
    &lt;rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/wsdl/http"/&gt;
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2005 08:56:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:31:53 UTC