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

Re: Issue 23: relationship of interface annotations in face of interface extension

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 17:08:51 +0200
To: verma@cs.uga.edu
Cc: SAWSDL public list <public-ws-semann@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1152025731.10081.46.camel@localhost>

Hi Kunal and John, 

I'm not sure that this approach would in fact be correct. We can have a
situation where a small printing interface is extended by a big
aggregated service interface, which may break for example
categorization. While the small printing interface may fall into a
"printing services" category, the big aggregated interface that isn't
limited to printing functionality could fall into a "general services"
category. In some taxonomy the "printing services" category can be
defined as services that only do printing.

I'd say that all the model references do apply (i.e. none are overridden
or precluded) in their scopes, in other words they do not propagate
anywhere. 8-)

Just my opinion,


On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 17:08 -0400, Kunal Verma wrote:
> Hi all,
> Following the general principle of all modelReferences applying to the
> other components, we could compute a transitive closure of all the
> modelReferences of all the interfaces extended by an interface and let
> all of them apply to that interface. Also given our former discussion,
> it might be wise to not imply any relationship between the
> modelReferences.
> Thanks,
> Kunal and John
Received on Tuesday, 4 July 2006 15:09:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:14 UTC