W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-semann-comments@w3.org > March 2009

Re: extending SAWSDL for XML instance semantic models

From: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 10:03:00 -0400
To: Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org>
Message-ID: <58581E87-556F-43B3-BBDE-BEB61D0AA425@mitre.org>
CC: "public-ws-semann-comments@w3.org" <public-ws-semann-comments@w3.org>
The example I give is a restriction but I am actually interested in  
the more general case of reusing both semantic models of property  
description and semantic models of values I can associate with the  

For example, I often deal with people who are interested in software/ 
service lifecycle, and they would like to have a property which is  
lifecycle status.  The challenge is depending on where they play in  
the service lifecycle, e.g. more interested in the development part  
than the deployment part, they have different, overlapping  
enumerations of software state.  What I would like to do is have a  
semantic model of lifecycle that could provide a metamodel for others  
creating specific lifecycle enumerations.

Now as I understand it, I can create a schema that includes lifecycle  
status and SAWSDL will support associating the lifecycle semantic  
model with the lifecycle status property, i.e.

<element name="lifecycleStatus">

and in an instance I can have


but I don't have an immediate way to tell someone what the semantic  
model is that describes "conceptual".  I can't add conceptual as an  
enumeration value in the lifecycle semantic model because not everyone  
will have a "conceptual" as a prescribed value and there will be lots  
of other values defined over time.  I certainly don't want to revise  
the lifecycle semantic model every time there is a new status  
proposed.  That is where we are now and it is neither scalable nor  

What I would like to have is a semantic model of each set of lifecycle  
values and then be able to create a mapping between them, and my guess  
is the lifecycleStatus semantic model would help me create the mapping.

Those are the pieces I'm hoping to put together.


On Mar 9, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Carine Bournez wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 07:24:59AM -0400, Ken Laskey wrote:
>> Take as an example that a large community has an element for "color"
>> and use sawsdl to point to its semantic model.  In this model, color
>> has its full range of typical meaning.
>> Now I only deal with traffic lights, so my valid colors are red,
>> yellow, and green, and I define a semantic model that includes that
>> enumeration.  You want to do a search against a data store I created
>> and a valid color for you is purple.  Of course, either my restricted
>> enumeration or your target are both valid for the color semantic
>> model.  However, if you search against my data store with only
>> knowledge of the color semantic model (e.g., the XML tag), you will
>> never match anything because your target (i.e., the value between the
>> XML start and end tags) is not in my semantic model that includes my
>> restricted enumeration.
>> So, I am looking for a way to show semantic models for values as well
>> as sawsdl applied to tags in the schema definition.
> It seems to me that the problem you describe is about adding
> restrictions to a more "for global use" ontology, but at
> the instance level rather than at the schema level.
> Is there a particular reason for not using an enumeration as
> the value type, then?

Ken Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305      phone: 703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive                         fax:       703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508
Received on Monday, 9 March 2009 14:03:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:27 UTC