Re: issue: type of modelReference attribute?

Hi Jacek,

I think the confusing part of my message was

> > We should make
> > it clear that multiple URIs  do not represent some union or other
> > combination of the ontological concepts that are referenced.

I was referring to how a modelReference attribute whose value includes more
than one URI should be interpreted.  I think the multiple URI's should be
considered references to be equivalent alternative descriptions.  The tool
reading the WSDL file should pick one. Each of the URI's would point to a
particular element in a model.  The list of URI's should not be interpreted
or used as an aggregate description of the semantics of the WSDL component
to which the annotation was attached.  So for example, if an input element
denotes a Nobel Prize winner and a Turing Award winner, you would include a
modelReferenc to a class called NobelTuringWinners.  You would not include
a modelReference with two URI's, one pointing to a class called
NobelWinners and a second pointing to a class called TuringWinners.  The
modelReference URI list cannot be used to define a new class.


Jacek Kopecky <> wrote on 04/21/2006 12:06:50 PM:

> Joel,
> thanks for picking up this part of the issue, but can I please request
> that you elaborate a bit on your message?
> Note that this is related to issue 3 [1] about identifying the type of
> the model, specifically to my question in a previous email [2] about
> whether we identify a thing within a model or a model file.
> If we identify a thing in a model, let's say class
> "" for annotating the input element
> <price>, then I don't see why the alternative models couldn't talk about
> the single one URI, i.e., even though
> they are expressed in different languages. Do you mean this kind of
> situation, or something different?
> Thanks,
> Jacek
> [1]
> [2]
> On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 10:10 -0400, Joel Farrell wrote:
> > Hi Jacek,
> >
> > While we address the URI vs. Qname question in the thread John started,
> > I'll comment on the list of references idea.  A list of references
would be
> > a simple way to express this.  The purpose would be to allow a tool to
> > chose the model expressed in the language it understands.  We should
> > it clear that multiple URIs  do not represent some union or other
> > combination of the ontological concepts that are referenced.  It is
> > a way to support alternative representations of the model.
> >
> > This is quite simple.  I would caution against introducing anything
> > complicated, such as an external RDF file.  I think it will be hard
> > for someone to have one semantic model, let alone multiple for the same
> > domain, so the feature will probably be little used.  But the approach
> > powerful enough to address the times when multiple models are
> >
> > >
> > > Additionally, we might consider making the attribute type a list of
> > > so that multiple annotations are allowed - one element can be modeled
> > > semantically both in OWL and in a different semantic language, and
> > > processor could choose what it supports.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Joel Farrell
> >

Received on Monday, 24 April 2006 14:04:18 UTC