- From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:49:30 -0700
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
- CC: "eric@w3.org" <eric@w3.org>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Thank you for your reply. > Regarding reviewing your material on Attachment in WSDL 2.0 ... FYI, The WS-Policy WG adopted new material on this topic from the following proposal at our F2F meeting last week: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0037.html > To summarize, it seems there is little point in WS-Policy and SAWSDL > coordinating with each other, other than that both should check with > WS-Desc about extending WSDL 2.0 right. The WS-Policy WG agrees and we resolved to indicate that Issue 3623 was FIXED by this dialogue. /paulc Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3 Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek.kopecky@deri.org] > Sent: September 11, 2006 2:53 PM > To: Paul Cotton > Cc: eric@w3.org; public-ws-policy@w3.org; Bijan Parsia; Philippe Le > Hegaret > Subject: RE: NEW ISSUE: (3623) Relation of Attachment to SAWSDL > > Dear Paul, replying here on the public list, > > thank you for raising this issue. We have discussed the relation between > Policy and Semantic Annotations briefly at our recent f2f meeting and we > came to the conclusion that we are attaching different things to WSDL, > even though both specs are general enough that they could be bent to > perform similar functions. > > The major difference is in the intention of the attached information. > SAWSDL aims to enhance the description e.g. for discovery (even if on > the XML level the WSDL wouldn't match), whereas Policy aims show what > restrictions there are when the WSDL is followed e.g. in invocation. > > I guess I could say the basic difference is similar to the difference > between XML Schema and OWL. > > Regarding reviewing your material on Attachment in WSDL 2.0, we can do > that from the point of view of overlap, but there's no significant > overlap between SAWSDL and what is in your section 4 (attaching policies > using wsdl 1.1) which mostly talks about computing effective policy. > Outside section 4, any perceived overlap between your reference > mechanisms (PolicyReference element and PolicyURIs attribute) and ours > (modelReference attribute) is really only structural similarity with no > real space for unification. > > To summarize, it seems there is little point in WS-Policy and SAWSDL > coordinating with each other, other than that both should check with > WS-Desc about extending WSDL 2.0 right. > > Further discussion about possible overlap might be interesting in the > scope of the Semantic Web Services interest group, perhaps, as suggested > by Bijan. > > Jacek > > > On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 11:27 -0700, Paul Cotton wrote: > > I raised this issue at the Web Services CG meeting today. Unfortunately > the Chair of the SAWSDL WG and the team contact were not available due to > other commitments. > > > > This email is to point out this issue to the SAWSDL WG Chair and team > contact. > > > > This issue was raised by a member of the WS-Policy WG and asks if the > WS-Policy WG and the SAWSDL WG need to coordinate since they are both > discussing material that can be attached to a WSDL. > > > > The current WS-Policy Attachments WD [1] contains a section that > describes how to attach web services policies to a WSDL 1.1 resource [2]. > The WS-Policy WG is planning to add a section to this document that covers > how to attach web services policies to a WSDL 2.0 resource. > > > > I would like to recommend that the SAWSDL WG review this new material > which is related to WSDL 2.0 when it becomes available. > > > > /paulc > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ws-policy-attach-20060731/ > > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ws-policy-attach- > 20060731/#AttachingPolicyUsingWSDL1.1 > > > > Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada > > 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3 > > Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 > > mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy- > > > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paul Cotton > > > Sent: August 25, 2006 12:33 PM > > > To: Bijan Parsia; public-ws-policy@w3.org > > > Subject: RE: NEW ISSUE: (3623) Relation of Attachment to SAWSDL > > > > > > > > > I have requested that this coordination item be discussed at a future > Web > > > Services Coordination Group meeting. At that time I will request that > the > > > SAWSDL WG review our initial WG drafts and inform us of any > difficulties > > > they have using the documents. > > > > > > Chris or I will report back after the WS CG meeting occurs. > > > > > > /paulc > > > > > > Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada > > > 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3 > > > Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 > > > mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy- > > > > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bijan Parsia > > > > Sent: August 25, 2006 6:49 AM > > > > To: public-ws-policy@w3.org > > > > Subject: NEW ISSUE: (3623) Relation of Attachment to SAWSDL > > > > > > > > > > > > Title - > > > > Relation of Attachment to SAWSDL > > > > > > > > Description - > > > > SAWSDL working group is defining a set of extensions to > WSDL > > > > for > > > > attaching "semantic" information. Presumably, this includes policy > like > > > > information. > > > > See: > > > > <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/> > > > > <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/spec/SAWSDL.html> > > > > > > > > Justification - > > > > They are a working group in an overlapping space. We should > > > > determine > > > > how much overlap there is. > > > > > > > > Target - > > > > attachment > > > > > > > > Proposal - > > > > I don't have one per se. I'm not an attachment or SAWSDL > > > > person. But at > > > > least the chairs perhaps should contact? > > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 20:51:06 UTC