- From: Joel Farrell <joelf@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 10:53:21 -0400
- To: Holger Lausen <holger.lausen@deri.org>
- Cc: SAWSDL WG <public-ws-semann@w3.org>, public-ws-semann-request@w3.org
Holger brings up a good point. We need to think about issues 6 and 11, while keeping in mind how the current approach led to the rules in issue 8. The fundamental problem is that a type (simple or complex) may need to be annotated by multiple concepts in an ontology, as in our example in which a "person name" field is both a "first name" and a "last name". I think Rama correctly points out that schema type to Ontology mapping should be separated from run-time parameter data mapping. The current spec attempts to address both with one concept. The focus of our spec is establishing a complete annotation of the semantics of the operation inputs and outputs. I will focus on that. One approach is to see if extensions to the modelReference approach can address the issue. Rama proposed using multiple URIs as had been proposed for a different purpose in issue 5. This might work, but I will point out a few questions. -- How do you tell if the URI's point to multiple annotations for this field, or an alternative concept in another semantic modelling language (as was discussed in issue 5)? -- Should the list of references be treated as a conjunction? Does that handle all the cases covered by the more general schemaMapping approach or would we have to introduce operators (I hope we don't have to do that). -- In his comments, Laurent pointed out , "however the same complex type can be used for different concepts, even in a single wsdl file, so there is a need for "external" annotation as well." So, perhaps an annotation on each of the xsd:element tags that reference the complex type will be needed. But doesn't that get us back into rules about conflicts between top-level and leaf-level annotations? If a variation of the modelReference approach can address these issues, it would be a great simplification to the spec. Regards, Joel public-ws-semann-request@w3.org wrote on 05/12/2006 09:46:36 AM: > Hi all, > > I agree with the problems those rules introduce, however before going > deeper into this (issue 8) I would first discuss more on the overall > concept of schemaMapping (issue 6/11). > > Also the at present schemaMapping is mentioned in the spec only for the > type level is confusing to me (although the sawsdl schema does not > prohibit it elsewhere). > > best > Holger > > > Joel Farrell wrote: > > Rama, > > > > I agree that we should add rigor and clarity to the resolution rules. If > > you have some possible suggestions, please send them along. I don't think > > we can eliminate the need for these rules since there are valid reasons for > > putting annotations at both levels. I am unaware of a way to enforce the > > rules. The schema will not help here and we don't have much else at our > > disposal. > > > >> Item: Conflict Resolution Rules (at the bottom of the section 2 in the > >> spec): > >> At the bottom of the section 2, we specify a bunch of rules to resolve > >> conflicts. Is there a way to formalize these rules or enforce them via > > the > >> spec? Or may be we should think about designing things in such a way that > >> conflicts don’t arise at all. > > > > Regards, > > Joel > > > -- > Holger Lausen > > Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI) > http://www.deri.org/ > > Tel: +43 512 5076464 > Email: holger.lausen@deri.org > > [attachment "signature.asc" deleted by Joel Farrell/Cambridge/IBM]
Received on Friday, 12 May 2006 14:53:52 UTC