Re: Can someone recap the differences between @serviceGroup vs. definitions-targetNamespace ?

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