W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-semann@w3.org > December 2006

Re: [Fwd: SAWSDL]

From: Laurent Henocque <laurent.henocque@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:07:03 +0100
Message-ID: <457FC2B7.1020601@gmail.com>
To: Holger Lausen <holger.lausen@deri.org>
CC: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>, SAWSDL public list <public-ws-semann@w3.org>

Thanks Holger for the link and comments.
Well, looking at examples C-1 and C-2, it seems that the bug free use of
these iris requires some level of practical skills...
I also notice that the section is non normative, and that the uris
introduce further vocabulary (interfaceOperation,
interfaceMessageReference, ...)

Cheers
Laurent

Holger Lausen a écrit :
> Hi Laurent,
> 
> More info on WSDL components URIs:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20/#wsdl-iri-references
> "This appendix provides a syntax for IRI-references for all components
> found in a WSDL 2.0 document." As far as I understood Jacek, there is a
> WG defining the same for wsdl1.1 and XSD, but we would need to check this.
> 
> With respect to your previous proposal, what I like is that it provides
> the potential to help the processor to resolve Resources. A major
> problem I suspect when only using external RDF triples is that a
> processor might have trouble resolving the document for some given
> namespace.
> 
> Say you want annotate WSDL A, so you create WSDL B, which simply imports
> WSDL A and repeats the components where annotation are requied (or
> inlines some RDF). Similar applicable to XSD.
> 
> best
>   Holger
> 
> Laurent Henocque wrote:
>> Thanks Holger for pointing out the existence of WSDL WG efforts
>> towards identifying specific WSDL elements with URIs and the
>> possibility to use RDF triples to bind extra annotations to existing
>> elements.
>>
>> To some extent, this situation lets our entire work on inlined SAWSDL
>> annotations collapse ;-). As I mentioned on the IRC during yesterday's
>> telcon, there are strong chances that external annotations become the
>> rule, not an exception (comparing with the evolution towards xhtml/css).
>>
>> Can  you give more insight on the range of WSDL components that will
>> be available through uris, and on when this specification will be
>> available? (is it in sync, or more advanced than our work?)
>>
>> In addition to what you mentioned, and to give a chance to my previous
>> proposal (I don't fight for it, but like its simplicity), may I
>> suggest the use of RDF triples to declare "redundant" sawsdl files
>> meant to be merged/combined to a reference WSDL
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/spec/wsdl/order
>> sawsdl:merge
>> http://some.other.partial.sawsdl/order
>>
>> or maybe the opposite way
>>
>> http://some.other.partial.sawsdl/order
>> sawdl:mergeAnnotationsInto
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/spec/wsdl/order
>>
>> and maybe we do not need to introduce another keyword, using
>> sawsdl:modelReference to mention that a secondary uri links to a
>> (maybe partial) file that provides annotations to the original
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/spec/wsdl/order
>> sawsdl:modelReference
>> http://some.other.partial.sawsdl/order
>>
>> I mention this just to illustrate that there might exist a life
>> between inlined annotations and component level annotations requiring
>> the use of a uri syntax. The user wanting to annotate an existing WSDL
>> or SAWSDL may find handy to just download the file, adapt it, and use
>> the combination declared using a global RDF triple. (All this without
>> officially working on external annotations, hence complying to our
>> charter)
>>
>> Laurent
>>
>> Holger Lausen a écrit :
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> after discussing it a while with Jack I think we do not need a specific
>>> piece of XML for this purpose. Here the line of argumentation:
>>>
>>> a) We also need to provide a mechanism to annotate external WSDL files
>>> (WSDL import mechanism) this can be either the case if someone
>>> implements a specific porttype (interface) defined by someone else or if
>>> a third party wants to add some annotations to a WSDL (assuming some
>>> kind of registry that adds categorization information).
>>>
>>> b) thinking about what we want to annotate (especially for the WSDL
>>> case) we do want to annotate components (e.g. the "order" operation in
>>> the "Order" interface) and not the first "wsdl:operation" occurrence
>>> within a "wsdl:interface". In exact we want to say something about
>>> components and not about their syntactic encoding.
>>>
>>> b1) There might be changes to the XML representation of the components
>>> that do not change the the meaning of the WSDL (e.g. flipping the order
>>> in which operations are defined), but might break a specific xpath
>>> statement.
>>>
>>> b2) WSDL WG is already working on URIs that identify a specific
>>> operation (e.g. the "order" operation in the "Order" interface):
>>> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/spec/wsdl/order#wsdl.interface(Order,wsdl.interfaceOperation(order))
>>> (or something like this, Jacek will correct me here)
>>>
>>> Similar to WSDL WG also XML Schema WG defines URI which exactly define
>>> components.
>>>
>>> c) Following this argument, XPath might not be the best way to annotate
>>> some external component (WSDL or XSD), instead a URI (component
>>> identifier) can be used. This would lead an XML similar to:
>>>
>>> <sawsdl:externalModelReferene
>>> sawsdl:component="http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/spec/wsdl/order#wsdl.interface(Order,wsdl.interfaceOperation(order))"
>>> sawsdl:modelReference="http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/spec/ontology/purchaseorder#Order"/>
>>>
>>> This essentially boils down to annotate a URI with a property. This in
>>> turn is exactly what RDF does. Thus we could achieve the same by not
>>> defining a new XML Element, but by reusing the RDF syntax we defined,
>>> leading to a triple like:
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/spec/wsdl/order#wsdl.interface(Order,wsdl.interfaceOperation(order))
>>> sawsdl:modelReference
>>> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/spec/ontology/purchaseorder#Order
>>>
>>> I would argue for explaining this use of rdf, instead of introducing a
>>> new element.
>>>
>>> best
>>>   Holger
>>>
>>> Jacek Kopecky wrote:
>>>> Hi all, Karthik has sent a proposal for external annotations in SAWSDL,
>>>> see the attached MS Word document.
>>>> Jacek
>>>>
>>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>>> From: Karthik Gomadam <karthik.gomadam@gmail.com>
>>>> To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>, Amit Sheth @ LSDIS
>>>> <amit@cs.uga.edu>
>>>> Subject: SAWSDL
>>>> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:04:57 -0500
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jack,
>>>> Please find the SAWSDL document attached.
>>>>
> 

-- 
*************************************************************************
Laurent Henocque
Maître de Conférences Hdr / Associate Professor
Ecole Supérieure d'Ingénieurs de Luminy - Marseille
Laboratoire des Sciences de l'Information et des Systèmes - Marseille
tel: +33 6 83 88 20 01
http://laurent.henocque.free.fr
http://laurent.henocque.perso.esil.univmed.fr
http://www.lsis.org/~laurent_henocque.html

Clé publique open pgp / open pgp public key:
http://laurent.henocque.free.fr/0x987E183.pub.asc
************************************************************************
Received on Wednesday, 13 December 2006 09:07:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:46 UTC