- From: Ramkumar Menon <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:36:56 -0700
- To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
- Cc: public-ws-semann@w3.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org
- Message-ID: <22bb8a4e0610231136x7e92ccf5k48b93d16dfbf1b25@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks, Jacek. I agree with you on all points. The two points that I wished to convey [but failed to do so :-)] are well described in your email. a) creating an ontology [fairly restrictive to keep things simple] for modeling MEPs and putting MEP descriptions at the MEP IRIs. b) Usage in Semantic Web Tooling. [I wd be excited to know more on this] rgds, Ram On 10/23/06, Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org> wrote: > > Hi Ramkumar, > > regarding the capturing of user-defined MEP semantics using SAWSDL, > I'd say that it would be more in the spirit of the SemWeb to describe > the semantics somewhere at the MEP IRI, not in SAWSDL. In other words, > the IRI should point to something that will (re)direct the requestor (in > some fashion) to a description of the MEP. SAWSDL is about annotating > WSDL instances, not about describing WSDL or its extensions (like the > user-defined MEPs or e.g. new bindings). > > The WSDL WG might be interested in creating an ontology for modeling > MEPs and putting MEP descriptions at the MEP IRIs (plus some > WebArch-friendly magic). The WSDL RDF mapping ontology actually does > contain a primitive model of MEPs: it only says that an MEP follows > specific faulting rules, and what message labels it defines. There's no > ordering among message labels in the model, but it can be added. > Actually, that would be trivial, if we restrict ourselves to something > like "labelA precedes labelB". Then there's the optionality of messages, > also fairly trivial. I can take a stab at this, maybe. > > I'll talk to some colleagues about whether this could be useful for > semantic web services tooling. > > I think we don't quite need to state that the MEP IRI may dereference to > a description of the MEP, but such a note wouldn't do any harm, either. > > What do you think? > > Jacek > > On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 19:32 -0700, Ramkumar Menon wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I happened to go through the SAWSDL spec and had a few thoughts to > > share. > > > > a) Is it worth capturing semantics of user-defined [and possibly > > predefined] Message Exchange patterns defined by WSDL2.0 within > > SAWSDL? - esp. the former variant. Since MEPs can be "re-used" across > > operations within/across services, wd it be better to capture the > > semantics of these separate from the annotations for each operation > > that uses them ? > > > > On a parallel thought, how plausible wd it be to state in the WSDL > > spec that the IRI for an MEP MAY [yes, its a MAY :-) ] be derefencible > > to a machine/human understandable document that describes the > > semantics of the MEP ? [similar to the "targetNamespace" attribute for > > the description] > > > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com> wrote: > > > > I have an action item to review SAWSDL, hereby discharged. In > > section 2.1, > > SAWSDL says: > > > > "In terms of the WSDL 2.0 component model, a model reference > > is a new > > property. In particular, when used on an element that > > represents a WSDL 2.0 > > Component (e.g. wsdl:interface, wsdl:operation, top-level > > xsd:element, > > etc.), the modelReference extension attribute introduces an > > OPTIONAL > > property {model reference} whose value is a set of URIs taken > > from the value > > of the attribute. The absence of the {model reference} > > property is equal to > > its presence with an empty value." > > > > 1) Editorially, it would be nice to refer to WSDL 2.0 > > Components by name > > instead of by their corresponding element. Esp. in the case > > of xsd:*, there > > is both a WSDL component and a Schema component, so by naming > > an xsd element > > it's not clear which component one might be referring to (the > > context makes > > it clear in this case, but still, we invented names for > > components, you > > might as well use them!) The same style can also apply to the > > last > > paragraph of section 2.2. > > > > 2) Secondly, there are two ways to interpret the last > > sentence. Presumably, > > an empty attribute would result in the presence of an empty > > {model > > reference} property, which would be _semantically_ equivalent > > to no {model > > reference} property. However, it might also be interpreted > > that in this > > situation the property could simply be omitted from the > > component model. We > > had some similar text in places in WSDL that gave us a bit of > > a headache in > > the interchange format, which requires a canonical component > > model. > > Basically, two processors that are both SAWSDL aware might > > have different > > component models - one might omit {model reference} and one > > might include it > > with an empty value. This could be dealt with in the > > comparison algorithm > > between two component models, but we've found it easier to > > just define a > > single clear mapping from XML to the component model. In this > > case, for > > instance, you could state "when non-empty and used on an > > element..." and > > simply omit the last sentence, or you could state "The absence > > of the {model > > reference} property is semantically equivalent to its presence > > with an empty > > value." The former seems cleaner to me as it doesn't augment > > the component > > model with meaningless information. > > > > 3) Along the lines of (1), it would be nice to be explicit > > about the > > components being annotated with properties in section 2.1.x. > > > > > > I'm afraid most of the Usage Guide is over my head, but in > > section 2.1, I > > notice an extra # on the schema namespace. Perhaps they > > should be validated > > more carefully - namely by submitting them to the WSDL test > > suite ;-). > > > > > > > > Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - > > http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org > > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On > > > Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky > > > Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 11:30 AM > > > To: WS-Description WG; public-sws-ig@w3.org; > > semantic-web@w3.org > > > Subject: SAWSDL Last Call > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > the Semantic Annotations for WSDL Working Group is happy to > > > announce that our specification has progressed to Last Call. > > The > > > specification, Semantic Annotations for WSDL, is available > > at > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-sawsdl-20060928/ > > > > > > The document is accompanied by a usage guide (intended > > > eventually to be published as a WG Note), available at > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-sawsdl-guide-20060928/ > > > > > > We will welcome any comments on our spec, especially with > > respect to how > > > it may interact with your work, and whether you find it > > useful, at > > > public-ws-semann-comments@w3.org, a mailing list with a > > public archive > > > at > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-semann-comments/ . > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Jacek Kopecký > > > chair of the SAWSDL WG > > > > > > -- > > > Researcher > > > DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute > > > University of Innsbruck, Austria > > > Phone: +43 512 5076481 > > > Org: http://www.deri.org/ > > > Blog: http://jacek.cz/blog/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Shift to the left, shift to the right! > > Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte! > > > > -Ramkumar Menon > > A typical Macroprocessor > > -- Shift to the left, shift to the right! Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte! -Ramkumar Menon A typical Macroprocessor
Received on Monday, 23 October 2006 18:37:11 UTC