- From: Jon Dart <jdart@tibco.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:49:26 -0700
- To: fred.carter@amberpoint.com
- CC: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Umit Yalcinalp wrote: > > There may be many different rationales for grouping. However, when you introduce grouping with serviceGroup and the only > relationship that is implied is "member of", then this begs the question of why we introduce the grouping at all when one can not > not define multiple groupings of a services. Many relationships between services are needed, why is this named grouping? I would think then it would be more powerful to define them then externally to the definition of the service itself, hence RDF. I agree with this observation. RDF makes possible a much richer set of relationships among services than WSDL can (without reinventing RDF, that is). I liked "member of" better just because it was semantically rather neutral: it doesn't say why something is a member of a group. So it could be multi-purpose, and could encompass the "manipulates" relationship among others. (I was not persuaded that "manipulates" was uniquely useful). But if you believe there will be a need for multiple simultaneous groupings, then surely something like RDF is more suitable. And perhaps the whole problem should be tackled at that level, external to WSDL. --Jon
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2003 19:49:40 UTC