- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:07:57 +0200
- To: "Amit Sheth @ LSDIS" <amit@cs.uga.edu>
- Cc: public-ws-semann@w3.org
Dear Amit, you're saying that "we need to allow redefinition/overwriting", yet you present no use case that would actually require that, as opposed to allowing both/all modelReferences to apply simultaneously. For example, when the type says something is an address, and the element says it's a delivery address, these two annotations taken together do not pose any harm that I can see. Am I missing something? We need justification for features we'd like to introduce. Best regards, Jacek On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 11:45 -0400, Amit Sheth @ LSDIS wrote: > Jacek: > > Here is a perspective on having both internal and external > ModelReferences on the same element. > > If there are more than one ModelReferences for an > element plus type (ComplexType/SimpleType), we need to be able to specifiy > which one applies (hence the ability to identify precedence). > [We need to allow redefinition/overwriting which is required when we > need to have > semantic annotation of an element (ModelRef) wrt to more than one > ontologies, > and redefinition/overwriting enables us to specify new annotation we wish to > apply.] > > Each ModelReference may have corresponding > Schema Mapping. > (b1) I suggest we consider adequacy of "latest annotation applies". > (b2) I do not believe we need to worry about mutual consistency between > two ModelReferences on an element > if they are wrt to different ontologies. > (b3) The issue of consistency is important with respect to all > ModelReferences in a > WSDL wrt to any one ontology (ontology models the world and has KR rigor > such as > consistency of ontological specification), but this will need to be > handled by tools and developers. > > Amit > ===== > > Kunal, > > do you have any specific scenario where precedence rules would be > useful? I feel that if the type says it is an Address, and the element > that uses the type says it is DeliveryAddress, both do apply, right? > I don't really see how we could specify that DeliveryAddress applies > more. > > If there is a conflict, like the type says it is a "Mammal" and the > element says it is a "Car", that would make an inconsistent (and > invalid) SAWSDL document, and I don't think we should hide this problem > by specifying that only Car applies for this particular use of what > elsewhere would be Mammal. > > So in a nutshell, I don't think we need precedence or resolution rules > if we call inconsistent documents invalid. > > Best regards, > > Jacek > > On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 17:25 -0400, Kunal Verma wrote: > > Finally, allowing annotations for both elements and complexTypes begs > > the question of which takes precedence when used together. As pointed > > out by Laurent in > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-semann/2006May/0043, the > > approach of giving the element annotation precedence over the type > > annotation seems like the way to go. > > > > "If some internal annotation exists for a complex type as well, any > > "where used" annotation takes precedence over the internal one." > > >
Received on Monday, 12 June 2006 14:08:08 UTC