- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
- Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 13:37:59 +0200
- To: SAWSDL public list <public-ws-semann@w3.org>
Hi all, this email attempts to summarize our discussions on issue 26 [1]. There are three questions in this issue: 1. Does interface categorization (or any modelReference) apply on operation? 2. Add categorization on operation level? 3. Need precedence rules for categorization on interface and operation? We seem to like the idea of categorization on the operation level, so we probably can add in section 2.1.2 some text similar to 2.1.1 talking about categorization, and pointing to appendix D. With this addition, we would be talking about using modelReference on WSDL operation to categorize it or to "provide a high level description of the operation". However, due to the potential complexity, we don't seem to want to make categorization on interface to apply on the operations as well, as this would either make all interface modelReferences propagate to the operations, or we would have to introduce a hard notion of categorization, which we eschewed so far. However, as we can envision that interface category may in fact apply to the operations as well, we can note in our specifications that the creator of the categorization model (e.g. something based on UNSPSC) can specify that if a category is attached to a WSDL interface using sawsdl:modelReference, this category will propagate to the operations as well. A processor that does not know this particular category will not see it on the operations, but that should be OK, since the processor cannot really do anything much with this modelReference anyway. A processor that does know the category will behave like it was on all the operations as well, because it will obey the propagation rule specified by the category model. Finally, on the question of precedence rules, I believe that our "all apply" handling of modelReferences is sufficient, and of course, the specifications for the particular semantic models (e.g. categories) can say whatever is appropriate about the relations (e.g. precedence) withing the model or to other semantic models. To summarize, it seems we could close issue 26 by * adding operation categorization text in 2.1.2 * mentioning somewhere that semantic models (e.g. categorization taxonomies) may specify propagation of their annotations from interface to operations, in which case they may want to handle precedences as well Hope it helps, Jacek [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/issues/#x26
Received on Saturday, 19 August 2006 11:38:32 UTC