Re: comments on SA-WSDL working draft 28. September 2006

Dear Dr. Waterfeld,

you have raised a number of issues against the SAWSDL Last Call draft,
which the SAWSDL WG accepted as LC issues 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in our
issues list [1]. This email is to notify you of our resolutions and give
you the proper chance to respond.

In Issue 3, you suggested that we split the document into two
specifications, one for XML Schema annotations and one for WSDL
annotations. We decided that this would result in two too-small
documents, therefore we decided instead to reorganize the specification
to have major sections structured along the split of what is annotated
(WSDL and XML Schema) and not how (model reference and schema mappings).
On top of this, we added XML Schema to the title of the specification,
resulting in "Semantic Annotations for WSDL and XML Schema".
We hope these changes satisfy your concerns in this issues.

In Issue 4, you noted that our ontology was incomplete, and we believe
to have fixed it.

In Issue 5, you opine that our use of three technologies in schema
mappings (SPARQL, XSLT, XQuery) is quite confusing. We believe we added
enough of explanatory prose in Appendix A.1 to clear the situation up.

In Issue 6, you call for a way of embedding semantic models in WSDL. We
already mentioned such a possibility along with an example in section 2
of the previous draft, but now we have a section (2.3 Embedding Semantic
Models) that discusses how semantic models can be embedded in WSDL and
used by SAWSDL. We believe no special mechanism akin to wsdl:types for
embedding schemas would be necessary.

Finally in Issue 7, you would like to represent the ordered values of
our annotation attributes using a mechanism other than the atomic list
datatype. We decided to stick to the string list because we believe this
XML Schema construct is known and supported well enough not to cause any
pain to developers, especially because URIs cannot contain white space,
which is used to separate values in the list. Please note that even the
core XML has list datatypes, e.g. IDREFS, for values separated by white

Please let us know by Jan 15 if you disagree with our disposition of
your comments.

Best regards and thanks for the comments,
Jacek Kopecky


On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 16:10 +0100, Waterfeld, Dr. Walter wrote:
> Hello Tomas,
> here are some comments on the current SA-WSDL working draft:
> inclusion of mapping between XML schema types and ontology concepts
>   The SAWSDL specification provides only a (probably smaller) part of
> the necessary specifications for semantic web services. This is
> probably
>   ok in order to make progress. On the other hand it contains a
> mapping between XML schema and ontology. This is a quite specific 
>   part, which is not needed in every scenario where semantic web
> services are used. Therefore this part should be a separate
> specification.
>   It may be even used for completely other purposes than in the
> context of web services.
> example ontology purchaseorder
>   The example ontology purchaseorder is used in the modelReferences of
> the SAWSDL. It is not contained in the spec and version
>   accessible via
> does not
> contain all used classes.
> many schema mapping technologies
>   For the schema mapping all together 3 technologies are used in the
> examples: SPARQL, XSLT, XQuery. This is quite confusing. At least
>   some more positioning - when to use what - is needed.
> more then links
>   the SAWSDL specification currently provides in its core only the
> definition of links to the identification of more or less arbitrary
> documents. 
>   I would like to see at least the kind of support that xml schema has
> in WSDL. That means additionally an embedding of the semantic model
> definition
>   should be defined. The major additional requirement would be that
> there is an XML serialization of the semantic models.
>   This would allow in a standard way to transport semantic models
> within WSDLs.
> listofAnyURI
>   XML has several possibilities to represent ordered values.
>   The encoding with atomic datatype is very special and somehow
> outside the XML node mechanisms.
>   Is it really a good idea to use these very special list datatypes?
> Best regards
> Walter
> Dr. Walter Waterfeld 
> Software AG
> crossvision R&D
> Uhlandstraße 12 
> 64297 Darmstadt 
> Germany 
> email: 

Received on Wednesday, 3 January 2007 18:57:03 UTC