- From: Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:00:16 -0800
- To: Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com>
- Cc: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, "'Assaf Arkin'" <arkin@intalio.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
please ignore this last message. It was not meant for the list. Duane Duane Nickull wrote: > Assaf: > > Is there a chance I can set up a meeting with you this week at your office? > > Duane > > Burdett, David wrote: > >> Assaf >> >> There are interesting ideas in your email but I don't think you've >> answered my original question which is how all this relates to the >> Semantic Web activity and RDF ... see more detailed comments below. >> >> David >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com] >> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 6:33 PM >> To: Burdett, David; 'Duane Nickull' >> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org >> Subject: RE: Including Semantics >> >> What you want to have are different semantic languages and a >> framework that associates all that information together. For >> example, XSDL would define some of the semantics of a message. It >> can tell me that a purchase order contains one or more line items, a >> billing address and a shipping address. >> [David Burdett] True, but XSDL does not tell you what a shipping >> address >>means<<. It might be pretty obvious based on our common >> experience >> and therefore does not need any explanation. But this is not the >> case for much of the information transported in business documents. >> XSDL only gives you a structure and method of identfying individual >> pieces of information - it's not enough >> In a different language, e.g. WSDL, I could say that a purchase >> order is required as the input for an operation and that the >> operation does not result in an immediate response. >> [David Burdett] Again I think you are making assumptions. For >> example what do you mean by a "response". Does it mean, for example, >> a) "I got the message but have done nothing with it", or b) "I've >> got the message and it's structure looks OK, i.e. I haven't checked >> that codes (e.g. productids) are valid, or stock availabilty", or c) >> "I've checked it and here's information on the extend to which I can >> satisfy your order". This is all semantic information that, I doubt >> would go in a WSDL definition. >> You can introduce other languages that say interesting things >> about >> that operation. For example, a cost language would introduce a cost >> property and a way to express the cost calculated from purchase >> order message. So you can say there's a property called 'cost' and >> determine that value of that property given a purchase order message. >> [David Burdett] I think I get this, but if you did have such a >> language, who or what would use it? It's not clear to me. >> Another language could define an object called delivery with >> multiple properties, reference the purchase order message as >> indicating the product property, an accept response as indicating >> the agent promising to deliver, and a delivery notice as indicating >> truth of delivery property. That 'delivery' object does not exist, >> but if you participate in the business choreography you can draw a >> lot of conclusions about the delivery status by observing how its >> virtual properties are modified during different states of the >> process. >> On a conceptual level this is very interesting since it >> allows the >> development of even smarter applications based on what is already >> there. That logical delivery object can be defined in terms of >> existing purchase order scenarios, even if you're running a COBOL >> application written thirty years ago. >> [David Burdett] I agree that the being able to abstract existing >> applications is important On a practical level, I will >> take a few years before we have the >> understanding of how to define such semantics on a larger scale and >> actual products that operate on that semantic. So right now it >> doesn't solve any problem. >> [David Burdett] Who do you think would be the right organization to >> develop these semantics and how to define them. >> But if you look at a combination like WSCI + WSDL + XSDL you >> can see >> that the semantic of WSCI express the context in which a WSDL >> operation is used and the semantic of the WSDL operation expresses >> what the WSDL type is used for. So we're already doing some limited >> semantic work on a step by step basis. And just like the logical >> delivery object above, the process that occurs between the services >> doesn't really exist, it's only inferred from how they operate >> together, and the operation doesn't really exist, it's only an >> understanding of the meaning of sending some input and receiving >> some output. >> arkin >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Burdett, David [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com] >> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 12:15 PM >> To: 'Assaf Arkin'; Burdett, David; 'Duane Nickull' >> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org >> Subject: RE: Including Semantics >> >> Assaf >> I agree with all of your email, especially the need for >> descriptions at the particle level, apart from the assertion >> "For computer processing RDF gives you a good framework". >> Perhaps it does, but for the problem in hand, I don't see how it >> is directly usable now. How would you, for example, actually use >> an RDF description of a business document when desiging, >> building or operating a computer system that wants to generate >> or process XML based business documents. >> David >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com] >> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 11:00 AM >> To: Burdett, David; 'Duane Nickull' >> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org >> Subject: RE: Including Semantics >> >> >> I think it really boils down to how >> the information is >> going to be >used<. Most information in business >> documents ends up >> either being printed or displayed for human consumption, >> or mapped to some internal format to populate >> information in an ERP system say. In both these cases >> you need a very clear definition of the meaning of the >> data that either a human can understand as help when >> viewing a document or can be used by another human to do >> a good map between external and internal formats. I >> don't see how RDF would help with this and I can't >> imagine a software tool that could make good use of it >> in this context. >> For computer processing RDF gives you >> a good framework >> and it can also contain information for human >> consumption (e.g. HTML formatted text). But practically >> speaking, we're still at the point where people do all >> that work, so what we need is way to annotate the >> information and present some textual information to the >> user. >> XSDL, WSDL and most other recent >> specifications have >> ways of annotating definitions. Ideally you should be >> able to annotate any definition, not just a top-level >> one, e.g. a particle in the XSDL content, an operation >> from a port type, etc. >> The namespace by itself is >> insufficient because you can >> have multiple definitions in the same namespace. But >> often some of the semantics is captured by the namespace >> on its own. For example, >> http://example.com/trading/futures may indicate that all >> related definitions deal with trading in futures. It >> won't tell you what a specific data type means, or what >> a particular operation does. But when you browse a >> repository of type/service/process definitions, it lets >> you easily determine what context you are looking at. >> arkin >> I accept I may be >> completely missing something - can >> anyone clarify? >> David >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 9:49 PM >> To: Burdett, David; 'Duane Nickull' >> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org >> Subject: RE: Including Semantics >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org >> [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of >> Burdett, David >> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 4:30 PM >> To: 'Duane Nickull' >> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org >> Subject: Including Semantics >> >> Duane asked ... >> >> >>>One missing component I would like to see is >> semantics. David - do you >> think there is a way to leverage the semantics >> of UBL, CCTS for the WSAG?<<< >> >> Semantics is a whole big topic on its own, but >> here's my take of the semantic information that >> you might need to define. Note I'm looking at >> this from a "business use" perspective: >> >> 1. Document Semantics. At the highest level a >> namespace identifies a document as consisting of >> a set of fields. Within this there are two >> additional levels to consider: >> >> a) Individual fields. Each field needs to be >> defined, e.g. what does "CustomerId" mean, e.g. >> is it the ID by which the Customer identifies >> themselves or the id which the supplier uses to >> identify the customer? >> >> b) Fields within a document, e.g. The Customer >> ID could appear can appear in multiple places in >> the document - how does its meaning vary >> depending on where it exists. >> >> 2. Context Dependent Semantics. The content of a >> message can also depend on the context in which >> it is being used, for example an Invoice in >> Europe is different from an Invoice in the US as >> it contains different fields. Similarly an >> Invoice used in the travel industry contains >> additional line item information (e.g flight >> segments) that other industries (e.g. the >> chemical industry) don't need. >> >> 3. Message Semantics. Messages >can< consist of >> multiple parts where you could describe each >> "part" as a document. You then need to, in the >> context of the message, define what each >> document mean, for example you might want to >> attach a supplier generated delivery note when >> requesting a "return materials advice" for some >> faulty goods. In this case the delivery note is >> evidence that delivery occured. This is >> different from its first use when the delivery >> note informs the buyer of what the supplier has >> shipped, but not yet delivered. >> >> 4. Transaction Semantics. The same message with >> the same structure and same semantics can be >> treated differently depending on where it is >> being sent and the context in which it is being >> used. For example sending an Order Message to an >> off-site archival service for archiving would >> have different meaning than sending the >> "identical" message to a supplier. >> >> So yes I think you could leverage the semantics >> of UBL etc, but that is just the start and my >> best >guess< is that you could use header >> information in a SOAP message to codify the >> semantics of the message ... although this sound >> very non-RESTafarian ;) >> >> Also ... this is a trout hole ... how does the >> W3C work on the Semantic Web fit in with all of >> this ;) >> Just looking at the perspective of Semantic Web, >> could we not use RDF to create maps of semantic >> information? >> >> For example, I can describe the semantics of a >> type using RDF (customerID) by referencing the >> type definition, but also the semantics of the >> content of a type (order/billing/address vs. >> order/shipping/address) if I can reference an >> XSD particle. And I can have both semantics, one >> that applies to address in isolation, and one >> that extends that semantics when address is used >> in some context. >> >> I would guess that the same is possible for >> transactions. For example, e.g. the address of >> the invoice that is sent by activity X of >> transaction Y. All I need is a way to reference >> a resource that can be part of a larger resource >> in the RDF description and then provide that >> semantic in the RDF. >> >> arkin >> >> >> >> >> David >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Duane Nickull [mailto:duane@xmlglobal.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 4:00 PM >> To: Burdett, David >> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org >> Subject: Re: Layers in the WSA (was RE: [Fwd: >> UN/CEFACT TMG Releases >> e-Bus ines s Architecture Technical >> Specification for Public Review]) >> >> <SNIP/> >> > > -- VP Strategic Relations, Technologies Evangelist XML Global Technologies **************************** ebXML software downloads - http://www.xmlglobal.com/prod/
Received on Monday, 17 February 2003 13:00:17 UTC