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

Re: schemaMapping issues breakdown (issue 6)

From: Laurent Henocque <laurent.henocque@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:22:40 +0200
Message-ID: <448EA000.2060301@gmail.com>
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
CC: verma@cs.uga.edu, Rama Akkiraju <akkiraju@us.ibm.com>, SAWSDL public list <public-ws-semann@w3.org>

Hash: SHA1

Can we consider schema mappings at a very general level, where they convert to/from data items and concept instances?
If so, they can be placed at toplevel in the specification since they can be reused (it is needless to mention a mapping
every time a modelreference is used for an element having the same type), and not only close to the (most relevant?)

Also: (questioning extension attribute?)

I am really not fond with constraining tools to parse or derefer uris to select modelReferences if needed (as was agreed
when closing the issue 5 lately - I fear I failed to grasp all the implications of this vote), but I agree that a
significant amount of relevant information can be present in such uris (namespace, versions, etc...)

When it comes to mappings however, the uri will not be exploitable to tell apart which concepts and/or types it refers
to. Hence, dereferencing will always be required for tools to know which mappings they can use. If we wish to allow for
smooth evolution, we might consider to raise the status of mappings from extension attributes to model elements, so that
the concepts/types they apply to in the current spec can be precisely listed, without requiring to dereference the uri.

As for model references, I understand how heavy it can be to change things in that direction, so please consider this as
a question rather than an issue for the moment.


Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

Received on Tuesday, 13 June 2006 11:22:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:13 UTC