W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > January 2003

Re: R120 URI-references, input for editors

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: 23 Jan 2003 11:01:33 +0100
To: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: WS Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1043316093.14987.77.camel@krava.in.idoox.com>


RDF has a way to describe indirectly something that has no name. I
believe that's (partly?) what anonymous nodes are for. The question is
not whether a message part is to be referencable, it is whether the part
is to be referencable directly.

We have to define an RDF representation of WSDL. To do this, we'll
define WSDL-specific properties which will for example tie a part to a
message. This poses no need that the part have a URI.

Same for XS anonymous types - you yourself are saying you want to refer
to the type *of an element*. Why not do it as it is said? "Refer to
_something_ that is the type of a given element" is much more
semantically correct than referring to _something_ and hiding the rest
of the sentence in the URI. Basically, URI designators are a parallel
universe of catching the semantics.

As for conceptual elements - I can see how that could be understood as
those "things" in WSDL that are visible to the user of that WSDL. That
is, the top-level constructs identified by a QName. Same in XS - an
anonymous type is only indirectly visible (as being a property of some
element) so it should be indirectly referenced.

Obviously, I'd like to get more people in this debate, I'm CCing this
message directly to David Booth.

Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation

On Mon, 2003-01-20 at 00:35, ryman@ca.ibm.com wrote:
> Jacek,
> The requirement to refer to conceptual elements comes from Semantic Web,
> not WSDL. Within WSDL, most things are refered to by QName or NCName. A
> <message> doesn't need to refer to its parts, but for Semantic Web, some
> application might want to identify a message part.
> Similarly, some application might want to refer to the type of an element
> even though it's anonymous. I think it's reasonable to say that all XSD
> have types, i.e. there's a mapping from XSD elements to XSD types.
> R120 was a based on a general principle that we can't identify all future
> application requirements, so we need to have a URI mechanism for
> identifying the conceptual components of a model. Of course, it is up to us
> to decide what is a conceptual component. I think any component of our
> abstract model qualifies as an important conceptual component. After the
> abstract model is finished, we'll have to update the URI-reference proposal
> to match it.
> I'd like to ask David Booth to further clarify the URI-reference
> requirement since he represents W3C and therefore should be able to speak
> for Semantic Web.
> Arthur Ryman
Received on Thursday, 23 January 2003 05:02:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:27 UTC