- From: Ramkumar Menon <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:36:56 -0700
- To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
- Cc: public-ws-semann@w3.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org
- Message-ID: <22bb8a4e0610231136x7e92ccf5k48b93d16dfbf1b25@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks, Jacek. I agree with you on all points.
The two points that I wished to convey [but failed to do so :-)] are well
described in your email.
a) creating an ontology [fairly restrictive to keep things simple] for
modeling MEPs and putting MEP descriptions at the MEP IRIs.
b) Usage in Semantic Web Tooling. [I wd be excited to know more on this]
rgds,
Ram
On 10/23/06, Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Ramkumar,
>
> regarding the capturing of user-defined MEP semantics using SAWSDL,
> I'd say that it would be more in the spirit of the SemWeb to describe
> the semantics somewhere at the MEP IRI, not in SAWSDL. In other words,
> the IRI should point to something that will (re)direct the requestor (in
> some fashion) to a description of the MEP. SAWSDL is about annotating
> WSDL instances, not about describing WSDL or its extensions (like the
> user-defined MEPs or e.g. new bindings).
>
> The WSDL WG might be interested in creating an ontology for modeling
> MEPs and putting MEP descriptions at the MEP IRIs (plus some
> WebArch-friendly magic). The WSDL RDF mapping ontology actually does
> contain a primitive model of MEPs: it only says that an MEP follows
> specific faulting rules, and what message labels it defines. There's no
> ordering among message labels in the model, but it can be added.
> Actually, that would be trivial, if we restrict ourselves to something
> like "labelA precedes labelB". Then there's the optionality of messages,
> also fairly trivial. I can take a stab at this, maybe.
>
> I'll talk to some colleagues about whether this could be useful for
> semantic web services tooling.
>
> I think we don't quite need to state that the MEP IRI may dereference to
> a description of the MEP, but such a note wouldn't do any harm, either.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Jacek
>
> On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 19:32 -0700, Ramkumar Menon wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I happened to go through the SAWSDL spec and had a few thoughts to
> > share.
> >
> > a) Is it worth capturing semantics of user-defined [and possibly
> > predefined] Message Exchange patterns defined by WSDL2.0 within
> > SAWSDL? - esp. the former variant. Since MEPs can be "re-used" across
> > operations within/across services, wd it be better to capture the
> > semantics of these separate from the annotations for each operation
> > that uses them ?
> >
> > On a parallel thought, how plausible wd it be to state in the WSDL
> > spec that the IRI for an MEP MAY [yes, its a MAY :-) ] be derefencible
> > to a machine/human understandable document that describes the
> > semantics of the MEP ? [similar to the "targetNamespace" attribute for
> > the description]
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/16/06, Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have an action item to review SAWSDL, hereby discharged. In
> > section 2.1,
> > SAWSDL says:
> >
> > "In terms of the WSDL 2.0 component model, a model reference
> > is a new
> > property. In particular, when used on an element that
> > represents a WSDL 2.0
> > Component (e.g. wsdl:interface, wsdl:operation, top-level
> > xsd:element,
> > etc.), the modelReference extension attribute introduces an
> > OPTIONAL
> > property {model reference} whose value is a set of URIs taken
> > from the value
> > of the attribute. The absence of the {model reference}
> > property is equal to
> > its presence with an empty value."
> >
> > 1) Editorially, it would be nice to refer to WSDL 2.0
> > Components by name
> > instead of by their corresponding element. Esp. in the case
> > of xsd:*, there
> > is both a WSDL component and a Schema component, so by naming
> > an xsd element
> > it's not clear which component one might be referring to (the
> > context makes
> > it clear in this case, but still, we invented names for
> > components, you
> > might as well use them!) The same style can also apply to the
> > last
> > paragraph of section 2.2.
> >
> > 2) Secondly, there are two ways to interpret the last
> > sentence. Presumably,
> > an empty attribute would result in the presence of an empty
> > {model
> > reference} property, which would be _semantically_ equivalent
> > to no {model
> > reference} property. However, it might also be interpreted
> > that in this
> > situation the property could simply be omitted from the
> > component model. We
> > had some similar text in places in WSDL that gave us a bit of
> > a headache in
> > the interchange format, which requires a canonical component
> > model.
> > Basically, two processors that are both SAWSDL aware might
> > have different
> > component models - one might omit {model reference} and one
> > might include it
> > with an empty value. This could be dealt with in the
> > comparison algorithm
> > between two component models, but we've found it easier to
> > just define a
> > single clear mapping from XML to the component model. In this
> > case, for
> > instance, you could state "when non-empty and used on an
> > element..." and
> > simply omit the last sentence, or you could state "The absence
> > of the {model
> > reference} property is semantically equivalent to its presence
> > with an empty
> > value." The former seems cleaner to me as it doesn't augment
> > the component
> > model with meaningless information.
> >
> > 3) Along the lines of (1), it would be nice to be explicit
> > about the
> > components being annotated with properties in section 2.1.x.
> >
> >
> > I'm afraid most of the Usage Guide is over my head, but in
> > section 2.1, I
> > notice an extra # on the schema namespace. Perhaps they
> > should be validated
> > more carefully - namely by submitting them to the WSDL test
> > suite ;-).
> >
> >
> >
> > Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com -
> > http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 11:30 AM
> > > To: WS-Description WG; public-sws-ig@w3.org;
> > semantic-web@w3.org
> > > Subject: SAWSDL Last Call
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > the Semantic Annotations for WSDL Working Group is happy to
> > > announce that our specification has progressed to Last Call.
> > The
> > > specification, Semantic Annotations for WSDL, is available
> > at
> > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-sawsdl-20060928/
> > >
> > > The document is accompanied by a usage guide (intended
> > > eventually to be published as a WG Note), available at
> > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-sawsdl-guide-20060928/
> > >
> > > We will welcome any comments on our spec, especially with
> > respect to how
> > > it may interact with your work, and whether you find it
> > useful, at
> > > public-ws-semann-comments@w3.org, a mailing list with a
> > public archive
> > > at
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-semann-comments/ .
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Jacek Kopecký
> > > chair of the SAWSDL WG
> > >
> > > --
> > > Researcher
> > > DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
> > > University of Innsbruck, Austria
> > > Phone: +43 512 5076481
> > > Org: http://www.deri.org/
> > > Blog: http://jacek.cz/blog/
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Shift to the left, shift to the right!
> > Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!
> >
> > -Ramkumar Menon
> > A typical Macroprocessor
>
>
--
Shift to the left, shift to the right!
Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!
-Ramkumar Menon
A typical Macroprocessor
Received on Monday, 23 October 2006 18:37:15 UTC