W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > March 2002

RE: GUIDE: Re: WSCL "well-formerdness" concept

From: Said Tabet <stabet@nisusinc.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 09:56:28 -0500
Message-ID: <DFAC1F0C49FDD3118BBC00508B60B41B18215D@RUBICON>
To: "'Jim Hendler'" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Hi Jim,

I agree with you, this is very relevant. I started looking at the document.
It will be interesting to compare it with WSCL, BPML, XLang and WSFL. For
now, I see little difference between all of them.



-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Hendler [mailto:hendler@cs.umd.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:07 PM
To: Hugo Haas; www-webont-wg@w3.org
Subject: GUIDE: Re: WSCL "well-formerdness" concept

At 11:37 AM -0500 3/20/02, Hugo Haas wrote:
>W3C acknowledged last week the WSCL submission[1]. I am writing to you
>to point out some relevance to the work done by the WebOnt WG.
>>From the abstract[2]:
>    This document specifies the Web Services Conversation Language. WSCL
>    allows the abstract interfaces of Web services, i.e. the business
>    level conversations or public processes supported by a Web service, to
>    be defined. WSCL specifies the XML documents being exchanged, and the
>    allowed sequencing of these document exchanges. WSCL conversation
>    definitions are themselves XML documents and can therefore be
>    interpreted by Web services infrastructures and development tools.
>    WSCL may be used in conjunction with other service description
>    languages like WSDL; for example, to provide protocol binding
>    information for abstract interfaces, or to specify the abstract
>    interfaces supported by a concrete service.
>>From the Team comment[3]:
>    Section 2.6 introduces the concept of well-formed conversation
>    definitions, which are XML documents validating the WSCL 1.0 schema,
>    describing conversations which have certain constraints on their   
>    interactions and transitions. Well-formed documents being a meaningful
>    term for XML documents, it would be better to call those conversations
>    another way, such as semantically meaningful. The constraints  
>    described for such conversations echo the work done at W3C in the Web
>    Ontology Working Group, and may be described in a computer-readable  
>    way.
>   1. http://www.w3.org/Submission/2002/02/
>   2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-wscl10-20020314/
>   3. http://www.w3.org/Submission/2002/02/Comment

GUIDE focus group - the WSCL submissions relates to both our agents 
and services use cases and discussions - might be furtile ground for 
some test cases.  I hope you will consider reading this and thnking 
about generating some examples based on it - would be a nice tie of 
our work to Web Services in an emerging area of interest.

Prof James Hendler				hendler@cs.umd.edu
Dept of Computer Science
AV Williams Bldg				301-405-2696 (work)
Univ of Maryland				301-405-6707 (Fax)
College Park, MD 20853 USA
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2002 10:02:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:28 UTC