2002/ws/desc/wsdl20 wsdl20-rdf.html,1.12,1.13

Update of /sources/public/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20
In directory hutz:/tmp/cvs-serv6569

Modified Files:
	wsdl20-rdf.html 
Log Message:
editorial changes in response to issue 284

Index: wsdl20-rdf.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/public/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-rdf.html,v
retrieving revision 1.12
retrieving revision 1.13
diff -C2 -d -r1.12 -r1.13
*** wsdl20-rdf.html	5 Jan 2006 14:54:15 -0000	1.12
--- wsdl20-rdf.html	2 Feb 2006 10:56:36 -0000	1.13
***************
*** 619,623 ****
  <code>authenticationRealm</code> with string values.</p>
  
! <h2 id="modelingdiffs">3. Differences from the WSDL Component Model</h2>
  
  <p>WSDL defines a component model which consists of components, component
--- 619,624 ----
  <code>authenticationRealm</code> with string values.</p>
  
! <h2 id="modelingdiffs">3. Differences from the WSDL Component Model
! (Informative)</h2>
  
  <p>WSDL defines a component model which consists of components, component
***************
*** 646,656 ****
  property, even though the reasoner has not seen it yet.</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
! extensions (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 specification prescribes.</p>
  
  <p>Apart from this difference stemming from the fundamental intentional
--- 647,669 ----
  property, even though the reasoner has not seen it yet.</p>
  
! <p>This difference effectively introduces two classes of documents that
! use the ontology from this document:</p>
! 
! <ol>
!   <li>RDF documents resulting from translating valid WSDL documents,</li>
!   <li>arbitrary RDF documents written using the WSDL ontology.</li>
! </ol>
! 
! <p>While this document focuses on the mapping from valid WSDL component
! models, and this section in particular talks about differences between a
! valid component model and its RDF representation, we must note that arbitrary
! RDF, RDFS, or OWL documents using the WSDL ontology may describe component
! models that are incomplete or even illegal. For example, from the point of
! view of arbitrary RDF documents that use the WSDL ontology, interfaces don't
! need to belong to any Description. Additionally, a single RDF document may
! also contain multiple unrelated Descriptions, that is, it may be an
! aggregation 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 specification prescribes.</p>
  
  <p>Apart from this difference stemming from the fundamental intentional
***************
*** 665,669 ****
  <p>In the RDF representation, all WSDL components are identified with their
  respective component designators (see todo ref), which are URIs generally
! constructed from the namespace and name of the component and from its parent
  component hierarchy. The original names and namespaces are not explicitly
  modeled in the RDF representation, which intends to convey the
--- 678,682 ----
  <p>In the RDF representation, all WSDL components are identified with their
  respective component designators (see todo ref), which are URIs generally
! constructed from the name and namespace of the component and from its parent
  component hierarchy. The original names and namespaces are not explicitly
  modeled in the RDF representation, which intends to convey the
***************
*** 711,740 ****
  <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,
  allowing for modularization while keeping the ability to validate that a WSDL
  document (plus all the includes and imports) doesn't use any unknown
! components. In RDF, data can generally be split into any number of pieces,
! which can be put together by the application as appropriate. If a piece of
! WSDL description uses an unknown component (an interface described in one
! document may extend other interfaces, not described in this document), the
! application may, if necessary, attempt to locate the description of the
! unknown component using its identifier IRI.</p>
  
! <!-- todo RDF does not have a standard generic way for including external
! documents - should we mention this? -->
  
! <p>The same reasoning applies to the schema documents included and imported
! in WSDL. All references to element declarations and type definitions are done
! by QName in the RDF representation and we expect the applications processing
! this representation to have means of locating the appropriate descriptions
! for these QNames. We do not model XML Schema (or any other) type and element
! descriptions in this ontology.</p>
  
  <!-- todo where can we raise the request for mapping XML Schema to RDF? -->
--- 724,749 ----
  <h3 id="diff-doc">3.2 Documents, imports and includes</h3>
  
  <p>In the XML syntax for WSDL, documents can be included and imported,
  allowing for modularization while keeping the ability to validate that a WSDL
  document (plus all the includes and imports) doesn't use any unknown
! components. Such modularization is lost when the WSDL files are parsed into a
! component model, therefore a straigtforward transformation of such a
! component model into RDF will result in a single RDF document.</p>
  
! <p>However, RDF data can generally be split into any number of pieces, which
! can be put together by the processing application as appropriate. If a piece
! of WSDL/RDF description uses an unknown component (e.g. an interface
! described in one document may extend other interfaces, not described in this
! document), the application may, if necessary, attempt to locate the
! description of the unknown component, for example using its identifier
! IRI. Note that RDF does not provide a standard generic way of including
! external data, so any inclusion is application-specific.</p>
  
! <p>Similar RDF modularization applies to the schema documents included and
! imported in WSDL. In the RDF representation, all references to element
! declarations and type definitions are done by QName and we expect the
! applications processing this representation to have means of locating the
! appropriate descriptions for these QNames. We do not model XML Schema (or any
! other) type and element descriptions in this ontology.</p>
  
  <!-- todo where can we raise the request for mapping XML Schema to RDF? -->

Received on Thursday, 2 February 2006 10:56:49 UTC