- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 18:54:45 +0200
- To: verma@cs.uga.edu
- Cc: public-ws-semann@w3.org
Hi Kunal, John, since it would be hard for us to define inconsistencies completely (without formalizing what we point to using some kind of logics), I'd suggest that we can note that in case an inconsistency is discovered by the processing agent, the WSDL document with semantic annotations should be treated as an invalid SAWSDL document, i.e. no action should be based on information in this document. What do you think? Jacek On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 11:56 -0400, Kunal Verma wrote: > Hi, > > If we support multiple modelReference for a WSDL element, do we plan > to add rules about consistency. Specifically, should someone be > allowed to annotate an element with two concepts (conceivably from > different models/languages but translatable to a common > model/language) that may contradict each other? > > These may become more of an issue in the following contexts: > > a) multiple operation based discovery. > > b) composition. > > c) use of protocols that use state information. > > Thanks, > Kunal Verma and John A. Miller > >
Received on Monday, 29 May 2006 16:54:58 UTC