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

Re: action on category vs modelReference

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:03:47 +0200
To: Holger Lausen <holger.lausen@deri.org>
Cc: SAWSDL WG <public-ws-semann@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1149523427.3834.19.camel@localhost>

Hi Holger,

with the addition of the small RDF ontology for categories, I think your
proposal makes a lot of sense. Anybody else has any opinion? 8-) 

Best regards,

Jacek

On Tue, 2006-05-30 at 18:00 +0200, Holger Lausen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> to address the still pending action to start a discussion on issue 10 [1]:
> 
> My proposal is to drop the recommendation to use the complex type
> sawsdl:category for the annotation of wsdl:interface. Instead a model
> reference should be used. We might publish a small rdfs ontology as
> additional note that defines the structure of the semantic model similar
> to what is done in the complex:type.
> 
> Rational:
> 
> * It is inconsistent to once talk about semantic models and to only
> reference them (not assuming anything about how they are expressed) and
> for category we require them to be expressed as xml instance of a
> particular complex type.
> 
> * It is arbitrary choice to define this structure for category, but not
> for provider, availability, etc.
> 
> kind regards
>   Holger
> 
> (Sorry I end up repeating my arguments - but so far nobody could
> convince me that they are invalid ;)
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/sawsdl/issues/#x10
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 5 June 2006 16:03:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:45 UTC