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

Dear Dr. Waterfeld, I forgot to say that all the resolutions are
implemented in the current editor's draft at [2].

[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/spec/SAWSDL.html

With apologies for any inconvenience,
Jacek Kopecky


On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 19:56 +0100, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> 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
> space.
> 
> 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
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/issues/LC-20060928.html
> 
> 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
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/spec/ontology/purchaseorder 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: Walter.Waterfeld@softwareag.com 
> >

Received on Wednesday, 3 January 2007 19:24:30 UTC