RE: operation safety as semantic annotation?

[Jonathan Marsh-2]

Thank you for this comment.  The Working Group this issue as a CR147 [1].

FTR, the WG closed this issue with no action, primarily because we are so
late in our process.  As you were present and offered no objection, we
believe this resolution is acceptable to you; if not, please let us know as
quickly as possible as we expect to publish PR drafts within a week or two.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR147

Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@... [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@...] On
> Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 7:04 AM
> To: WS-Description WG
> Subject: RFC: operation safety as semantic annotation?
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> as you may know, the specification for Semantic Annotations for WSDL and
> XML Schema [1] (SAWSDL) moving to CR. In our institute (my W3C hats are
> off), we work on Semantic Web Services, and we plan to use SAWSDL as the
> glue between our semantic description language and WSDL.
>
> For my work, I will need to know the semantic description, i.e. what the
> various service operations and data mean and do. One piece that I need
> is operation safety. Currently, that is realized in WSDL as an extension
> attribute, wsdlx:safe="boolean", with the default being false.
>
> Operation safety is, at least to me, a clear semantic annotation. It
> says nothing about the structure of the interface, instead it indicates
> what the operation does (or rather, what it doesn't do - any side
> effects or additional obligations in Web Architecture speak).
>
> I would propose that we change the syntax from wsdlx:safe="true"  to
> sawsdl:modelReference="http://www.w3.org/2006/01/wsdl-
> extensions#SafeInteraction"
> I know it's much longer, but please bear with me. 8-)
>
> The WSDL Interface Operation {safety} property can stay as it is, only
> its XML representation would change to "the IRI for SafeInteraction (as
> above) will be included among the IRIs that are the value of
> sawsdl:modelReference". The URI above is currently used in the RDF
> mapping of WSDL to represent the safety property.
>
> At worst, the people hand-writing and reading WSDL would have their
> lives just a bit harder. At best, this would blend right in with the
> plethora of other semantic annotations. Certainly, from my own point of
> view, having safety as a semantic annotation as opposed to an extension
> attribute would make my life just a bit easier.
>
> Thanks for your consideration,
> Jacek
>
> [1] http://w3.org/tr/sawsdl