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

Re: why distinguish between simple and complex types? (issue 11): allowing internal and external ModelReferences on the same element

From: Laurent Henocque <laurent.henocque@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:40:09 +0200
Message-ID: <448E87F9.8040603@gmail.com>
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
CC: "Amit Sheth @ LSDIS" <amit@cs.uga.edu>, public-ws-semann@w3.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

This precedence issue probably only relates to what the outer world expects from those annotations.

I would tend to think that the concept attached to the element should intersect the concept attached to the type. But in
fact they can be irrelated as well (using a 'point' as a 'geographic coordinate' should not constrain GC to be a
subconcept of Point in the same ontology).

I however guess that most uses of this information will favor the external reference over the type if available, but
this is only an intuition.

So I am ready to agree that the two or more model references apply simultaneously and that no precedence needs to be
considered.

Laurent

Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> 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." 
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

- --
*************************************************************************
Laurent Henocque
Maître de Conférences Hdr
tel: +33 6 83 88 20 01
Enseignant à l'Ecole Supérieure d'Ingénieurs de Luminy - Marseille
    http://www.esil.univ-mrs.fr
Chercheur au Laboratoire des Sciences de l'Information et des Systèmes - Marseille
    http://www.lsis.org

clé publique open pgp / open pgp public key :
http://www.esil.univ-mrs.fr/~henocque/0x987E183.pub.asc
************************************************************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEjof5IF1tz5h+GDARAs70AJ44/dH6Mn8JjAJeiMeVkmltoTYWMACeOCai
Vxixu7EUW2+Gs0fFtqfKjrk=
=CpBx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 13 June 2006 09:46:44 UTC

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