Re: [Fwd: SAWSDL]

Hi Laurent,

while the section on component designator URIs is non-normative, it's as
good as it's gonna get. The WS-Description WG (or some other) will
produce a document (also non-normative) that presents the same kind of
URIs for WSDL 1.1. And the XML Schema WG is going to propose the same
kind of URIs for XML Schema components.

But regarding your concern that our work might collapse in the light of
these URIs and RDF, but we still do define three particular annotations
(XML attributes, RDF properties) and their meaning on various
components, that is not going away whatever way we actually write them
down (and whether it's inlined or external).

I'm concerned about your proposal of partial WSDLs that we would have to
specify exactly the merging process and that this would lead to a number
of rat holes... It certainly wouldn't work if your partial WSDL just
imported the original one - there would be conflicts - the WSDL 2.0 spec
would stand in the way of such a simple solution.

Do you care to specify the merging mechanism?

Best regards,
Jacek

On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 10:07 +0100, Laurent Henocque wrote:
> 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.
> >>>>
> > 
>

Received on Wednesday, 13 December 2006 15:06:06 UTC