SAWSDL WG teleconference

 

 

<ericP> scribe: bns

<ericP> PROPOSED: accept http://www.w3.org/2006/07/18-semann-minutes as a true record of the last meeting

<ericP> APPROVED

<ericP> ACTION: EricP and JacekK to draft an RDF mapping section for SAWSDL [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/25-semann-minutes.html#action01]

<ericP> ACTION: EricP to add text gravy to his annotated Amazon WSDL and put it in Examples document [CONTINUED] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/25-semann-minutes.html#action02]

<ericP> ACTION: Rama to come up with a text explaining "best practice" for the categorization issue [CONTINUED]

<ericP> ACTION: Rama to ask Laura to send the Telecom Italia UC document to the group [DONE] [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/25-semann-minutes.html#action03]

no action item is needed to keep track of progress

<ericP> ACTION: Joel to update definitions in the document [DONE]

rama: to send comments to claudio

Reminder: Administrivia

<ericP> F2F registration

Issue 22: revisit section on WSDL 1.1 mapping [1]

joel: issues that remains is 1 and that is "applying model reference to operations" does not support extensibility elemets
... element extensibility is an option
... element extensibility and model reference could both be used

ericP: any attribute that can be optional?
... 1.1 extends the semants of 1.1 operations to allow the attribute extension

joel: would we call it a model reference? anybody has objections?

ericP: we keep the attribute extensions and do something like this:

<operation ... ><sawsdl:attrExtensions sawsdl:modelReference="..."/>...</operation>

ericP: keep the same encoding

<ericP> PROPOSED: add WSDL1.1 operation modelReferences via this XML syntax: <operation ... ><sawsdl:attrExtensions sawsdl:modelReference="..."/>...</operation> [APPROVED]

john: you can specify that two schemas are depricated

Clarification of documentation on Categorization information on WSDL interfaces

<ericP> new issue from Rama

rama: categorization of a particular interface using same model reference, all the operations on that interface would be categorized at the level of interface
... do we also want to say something about the abilities?
... example purchaseOrder, for example, is the interface and monitor purchase order could be an operation on that interface

ericP: its not an extension, but a different interface

joel: all applies rule should work at model reference

<ericP> +1

claudio: there are some situations such as IT Service provider, which can, for any reason, perform different operations
... recommends to keep extentions at operations level

joel: unaware of any case where any case is categorized as portTypes, you can't just publish operations

john: no sure if there is incompatibility, all applies is still the best practice

ericP: Semantic Web recomments not to write anything that later contradics

rama: we can't prevent people from extending both operations and interface

joel: if we have ModelReference on a Operation how to distinguish categorization from something else

john: relevancy applies universally, nothing is normative, an example would clarify

joel: editors to take care based on the input from Rama

Telecom Italia Use Case

rama: some of the requirements are not explicitly in scope of SAWSDL, especially those related to preconditions and effects
... WSDL that are provided are long, don't think we need such a long WSDL to clarify the usability in example document
... suggests to use snippets and use pointers to the actual document

claudio: there are more than what is needed, coming from own experiences, we can sharp it down to the scope of the WG
... the operations provided are the standard interfaces provided by parley-x

rama: it is a valuable to annotate real industrial stuffs, but example document may not be the right place to do so

<carlos> +1

claudio: agrees to make it simpler

<ericP> ADJOURNED