Re: Agenda: 5 January 2006 WS Description telcon

Hi, I can't attend today, but I have a few comments below.
I may attend partly on IRC, though.

On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 16:10 -0800, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 4.  Administrivia
>  a. Welcome new co-chair, Tony Rogers [.1]

Welcome and congratulations, Tony! 8-)

>  b. January 25-26 telethon meeting: reserve 10-2 EST each day [.2]
>  c. Feb meeting (Cannes) draft schedule available [.3].
>   - Which ideas for TP day content should we suggest?
>     + Adventures in Formal Methods [.4]
>     + Chad [.5] (already done)
>     + MEPs or Mess [.6]
>     + Typography [.7] 
>     + RDF Mapping for everything [.8]

How about all of them? 8-)

> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 8.  RDF Mapping issues process - which issues should be brought
>     to the attention of the WG? 

I understand it's hard for the WG to understand some of the issues, I'll
try to provide as much guidance as I can and to only ask the WG things
that the WG can effectively decide.

BTW, issue 288 is mistakenly logged as 88, which is thus duplicated, and
perhaps that's why it's missing in the agenda.

> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 9.  Issue 106: 106 Using RDF in WSDL [.1]
> 
> [.1]
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.h
> tml#106

Wow, this is an oldie. I suggest that we close this issue noting that
anyone (SWS people, probably) can easily create an extension to WSDL
which will put those RDF statements inside WSDL, with a trivial mapping
to the RDF representation. Defining such an extension is out of scope
for WS-Desc WG.

In other words, I withdraw my issue. 8-)

> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 10. Issue 282: Description Component [.1]
> 
> [.1]
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.h
> tml#282

The Description component was added after the issue was raised, we
decided it wasn't so expensive to have it, after all, and even if I'm
not convinced it's useful, I think it's harmless at worst. 8-)

> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 11. Issue 283: Review of WSDL 2.0 - RDF Mapping: General comments [.1]
>   - Jacek's response [.2]
> 
> [.1]
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.h
> tml#283
> [.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Dec/0031.html

The last part of my response can count as an action item for me which
I'm willing to accept. 8-) For the rest of the issue, it's up to David
to decide if it was answered sufficiently by Bijan and me in the
existing emails.

ACTION: JacekK to detail (e.g. in a list) what constraints of the
component model are not enforced by the WSDL ontology

> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 12. Issue 284: Review of WSDL 2.0 - RDF Mapping: Comments by Section
> [.1]
> 
> [.1]
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.h
> tml#284

I will be suggesting resolutions to the particular points in due course.

> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 13. Issue 285: Review of WSDL 2.0 - RDF Mapping: Editorial comments [.1]
> 
> [.1]
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.h
> tml#285

Suggested fixes incorporated in the editor's copy. Note that the
document still uses URI in many places, we might want to give me an AI
to go through them and (mostly or completely) change those occurrences
to IRIs.

> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 14. Issue 286: Reusing Part-Whole ontology? [.1]
> 
> [.1]
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.h
> tml#286

I think we should first investigate the status of the Part-whole
ontology in the SWBPD WG. I can take the AI if noone else volunteers.
8-)

Hope it helps,

Jacek

Received on Thursday, 5 January 2006 15:19:27 UTC