- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: 28 May 2003 23:11:45 +0200
- To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Cc: WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Jonathan, if the substitution group of an element is specified by its schema, why should the RDF elements make a special case for WSDL? Anyway, our extensibility model works well for elements intended to extend WSDL. We have the following options, I think: 1. we can create an element intended for extending WSDL with RDF (my proposed wsdl:rdfDescription) 2. we can create a placeholder for semantics (wsdl:semantics similar to wsdl:types) 3. we could just put rdf:Description (or rdf:RDF) inside wsdl:documentation if that is the right place Special-casing RDF doesn't feel right and isn't necessary anyway as rdf:Description elements gain nothing from being placed in any particular place in WSDL, that's why wsdl:semantics or wsdl:rdfDescription would be better if we indeed see RDF as extending WSDL. Option 3 indicates that we may see RDF statements as documentation/annotations of WSDL components, but then the wsdl:rdfDescription element would automatically supply the resource that is being documented/annotated. In the (envisioned) RDF mapping of WSDL, the additional statements would be an integral part of the graph together with the WSDL statements and since such statements need not originate in any of our addressable components, wsdl:rdfDescription alone may not suffice. I wish we were more familiar with this whole area, and I'm sorry I can't be at the telcon tomorrow, I'd like to see *that* discussion. 8-) Jacek Kopecky Senior Architect Systinet Corporation http://www.systinet.com/ On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 21:05, Jonathan Marsh wrote: > Why cannot anyone who wants to add rdf:Description to the appropriate > substitution group? Why do we have to make a special case for RDF? Is > our extensibility mechanism so broken that it fails its first test? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] > On > > Behalf Of Christopher B Ferris > > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 6:11 AM > > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org > > Subject: Re: using RDF (OWL) in WSDL > > > > > > Jacek, > > > > Seems to me that Arthur has a point. Why not simply extend the WSDL > schema > > to allow for rdf:Description? Seems quite reasonable to me. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Christopher Ferris > > STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture > > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com > > phone: +1 508 234 3624
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2003 17:11:58 UTC